Skip to main content

Full text of "The Law times, Volume 58"

See other formats

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 
to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 
publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 

We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 

at |http: //books, google, com/ 


i: ^r ■:,-...■■■ ..-J 

■ I , ■ I . , / • 

\ • ' 


Digitized by 


Digitized by 











^ » 











I I 

% •* 



-*. . 

led by 




Naues op Cases. 
AUsop r. The Tnutees of the K^Ute of U. 0. 

Disney, 862. 
Beasley r. Potter, 158. 
BUke r. iieteer and PsMook, 416. 
Bolland, ex parte ; n Falethoipe, 416. 
Boetel, re, 29. 
Brooke, re; ex ports, Lewis, Stead, and Bawdon 

Stead, 169. 
Bamford, re^ J., 11. 
Clewett, re J. B., 809. 
Coatee r. Bruce; Bo\rer v. Brace; and Hant and 

Anor 0. Bmoe, 460. 
Cohen v. Heldeo, 49. 
Croft, re Samuel, 66. 
Oroes, re, 82, 169. 
Cttsker, re, 464. 

Datre, ex parte t re Hoaband, 319. 
Diokson, re J., 219. 
Bisney, re, 158. 
Edgar, re J. 8., 220. 
Faobin, exparUi re-Soanavi, 291. 
Ferridge and Ferrldga, rst e.c ptrle Sbattock and 

Haywai^ 310. 
Fitie, re, WilUa^^ 12. 
Fcater, re, 844. 

Oibbe, «B fortei re Webb, 464. 
Hafen, re Von ; export* Pasley, 49, 217. 
Halifax Joint Stock Banking Company, ex parte ; re 

F. and E. Greenous^ 372. 
Hardy, re Georgti SloC 
Harrey, ex parte Edward ; re Nutt, 808. 
Harrey r. Great Western Railway Companj, 452. 
HelUef, re, 434. ■* 

Hill, re, 897. 

Holden and Perty. re, 220. 
Isaac V. Jowett, 461. 
Johnson, re, 290. 
Justice, re John, 362. 
Kemp, ex parte; n Topbam, 1*8, 
Lane r. Disney ; Hnut t, Disney, 12. 
Light, re J., li 
lUybew, re, 141. 

KBner's Liqoidation, re Alfred, 83. 
Horris, re Hngh, 286. 
Nathan, re HTU., 11. 
Newby, ex ixnfe; re Jewett, 898. 
Parker e. Great Esstem Bail way, 433. 
Pearson, re William, tJl. 
Porteous, re, in. 

Prorincial Bank, ex parte The; re Easdale, 136. 
Bandolph and Company, sc parte re Hanson, 

Pickfes and Coiflt>any, 899. 
Baw r. BoUnson and Anor, 430. 
Bussell, ex parte Sir William, 307. 
Salinos, re, liB. 

Sidney and Wiggins, rt, 10, 82, 196, 317. 
eaby, rt, 286, 


Simon, re; ex parte Leolue, 12. 

Smith, re; ex parte Brignsl, 82. 

Stephens, re, 219. 

Sutton r. Potak ; re Taylor, 108. 

Thomas and Smith, re, 29. 

Thompson, re, 899. 

Vioksrs, re; ex pml* Barkec, 400. 

Westwell, re, 809. 

WUdes, re George Henry, 827. 

Wilkes, ex parte; re Pinches, 49. 

WooUey v, Disney, 11. 

Subjects op Cjues. 
Act of bankruptcy— Execution creditor — Seizure 

and sale— Second seizure— Tftle of trustee, 219. 
Adjndication — Petition for, ssainst partDers— Joint 
petition for liquidation — Uontinoug joint liabi- 
lity, 899. 
Setting aside, 156. 
Adjournment of meeting of creditors — Power of 

registrar, 809. 
Assignment— Bill of sale — Frandulout praference, 
Of a debtor's property— When an Act of Bank, 
ruptcy, 30. 
Bankruptoy bnsineaa, 808. 

Beiorm, 823, 881. 
BQl of sale— Petitition for liquidation — Order and 

disposition, 898. 
Composition- Failnre to pay— Second petition— Ir. 
regularity, 196. 
Proceedings — ^Bejection of proof by trustee, 

Begistratioa of resolutions— Second liquidation 
petition — Failure of debtors to pay composi. 
tion under first, 10. 
Trusteo under- Proof of creditor— Bejeotion 
by trustee, 122. 
Debtor's statement — Freeh mestiog, 464. 
Deposit money, application for payment of, 236. 
Examination of bankrupt — Answers tending to 

oriminata— Prosecution of bankrupt, 11. 
Fiandnlent preference, 49. 

Fisswitisl conditions — Burden of proof of good 

faith, 29. 
Hptice of bankruptcy, 810. 
nymeot nnder pressure — Liquidation, 82. 
Infant— Liability to adjudication. 290. 
Interim order to restrain prooeedings by creditor— 

Alleged fraud— Costs, IL 
Joint tai separate estate— Bigbt of joint creditor 
filing a Boparate petition to prove on the separate 
esUte, 49. 
Legal departments oommlssion, the, 176. 
Llqnidatmg debtor- Order to pay a sum aannally 

to orsditms— Liqoidation ana bankruptcy, 819. 
Uqoidation- Composition uufolfilled— seoond peti. 
&>n— liejdity, 82. 

LifoHalion- Creditor with proTOaUe debt, 291. 
EBfdiah and foreign creditors, 11. 
Jnrtadiction of court, 220. 
Begistration of resolutions— Adjoummeuts, 12. 
Befusal— Assets. 464. 

Spedal resolution- Injunction, 12. 
Mortgagees' rights — Jurisdiction of court to rcflrain 
Chanesry proceediogs — Trustees' personal liabi- 
lity, 103. 
Order and disposition— Custom of trade — Letting 

cabs for hire, 897. 

Partnership— Joint and separate creditors— Bight of 

petitionmg creditor, 169. 

Separate adjudication — Joint creditor, 217. 

Petitioning creditor's debt, what is a sufficient, 270. 

Power of court to set aside pay of a high bailiff a 

bankrupt, 484. 
Preferential claim as a workman — Workmen con. 

tractors, 862. 
Promissory note- Kon-paymeut — Jurisdiotion of 

Oouuty Court, 168. 
Proof of creditor— Election of trustee, 400. 
Dtobt, 220. 
Bejection of— Motion to admit proof dismissed. 

Property acquired daring oontinuanoa of bank, 
ruptcy, right of bankrupt to— Liability to seizure 
by trustee, 49. 
Qnoram of creditors — Trustee appointed by Tirtue 
of, inTalid— Proof and proxy— Gspunging a proof 
and Taoation of appointment of trustoe, 862. 
BeoelTer— Negligence— Kmployment of debtor— 

MisapproprtaVon, 66. 
BeceiTera and managers, 808. 
Charges, 168. 

Two appointments — Costs — Taxation, 271. 
Beform of the Bankruptcy Laws, 140. 
Bsgistration of resolntiona, 286. 
Duties of the registrar, 121. 
Seoond petition — Practice^ 889. 
Bestoring order refused until receiver appointed, 309. 
Beetraioing orders— Power of oourt, 810. 
Secured creditors— A policy of Insurance held to 

be a aeourity, 416. 
Serrants — Working contractors— Bight to prior 

payment, 168, teL— Maritime lien, 116. 
Stamp duty, 219. 

SncoeMTe petitions for liqnidatloD, 217. 
Trustee— Application to remore, 141. 

Choice 01— Duties of registrar— Proofs of relsa 

tion Sj 827. 
In baukrupicy, the duties of a, 12. 
Fowsra of under a oumpitoition, 329. 
Voluntary paymoit to protect surety- i^udulent 

praferenoe— Ilotire, 178. bankrupt estates, 82, 169. 
WoiUng of ill* Bankruptcy Laws, 382. 

Digitized by 





[June 19, 1S75. 


Accountants' notices, 401. 

Admission of Englisli Solicitors in tlio colony of 

Victoria, 221. 
Aneiito, 4o.. in County Courts, 1G2, 237. 
Ar'id.d Clerks' Detmting Societies, S6. 
As to the Liability of Mortgages to Benefit Building 

bucielies for ^500 and under to Stamp Duty, 364. 
Attorneys' Certificates, 15. 
Ennkniptcy Eeforra, 401, 402. 
Barristers and Solicitors, 33, 275. 
Landowners preparing Conveyances to their 

Vendees, 14. 
Birmingham Law Societj", 255. 
Building Societies' Act 1874, 222. 
Society Mortgages, 401, 417. 
Burial Boards and the Clergy, 105. 
Burning Questions of the Profession, The, 292 
Claims of Returning Officers, 143. 
Clerks in District Eegistries conducting Probate 

Jiuainess. .S29. 
Coles f. Pilkington, 85. 
Cojnaiissions for Oaths in the Queen's Bench, 237, 

^ I'os'™ ^'^^ Commissioners to administer Oaths, 
Costs as Damages, 455. 

of Prosecuting Fraudulent Dettors, 291, 328. 

Hespondents before Justices, 255. 
County Committees under Licensing Acts— Barris- 

tens and Solicitors, 14. 
County Court Agents, 275. 

Bailiffs, 85 

Jurisdiction, 401. 
Curious decision, 34, 51. 
Debtor and Creditor, 435. 
Deeds of Arrangement, 311. 

Devilling at the Bar, 198. 

Dower and Free Bench, 455, 

Duty on Building Society Mortgage, 51, C7. 

Effect of a Pardon, 401. 

Ellis V. Ellis, 328. 

Enforcing Payment of Poor Rate, 291. 

i:xponditure in Advertisements, 312, 329. 

Final Examination, 275. 

Folios in the Court of Probate, 329. 

Forfeiture and Waiver, 436. 

Hinde Palmer's Act 1869, 291. 

Incorporated Law Society and the Legal 

Practitioners' Society, 85. 
Interpreters in Welsh Courts, 364. 
Judicature Act and Law Examiuation, The, 61. 

Commissions for Oaths and Designation of 
Solicitors, 275. 
Jurymen in the Forest Courts, 198. 
Land and Law licforiii, 143. 

Titles and Transfer Bill 1876, The, Sll, 401. 
Of last Session, 85. 

Transfer, 329. 

Transfer Bill, The, 363. 

Transfers and Eegistration, 292. 
Law Clerks, 105. 

Dispensing Orders, 4c., 123. 

Students' Societies, 34, 222. 

Transfer, 328. 
Legal Advisers at Courts Martial, 418. 

Profession, The, 291. 
Licensing Act 1874, The, 105. 

and the Brewing Trade, 456. 
Managing Clerks, 34, 50, 67, 86, 105, 123. 

Certificates, 14. 
Master and Servants' Act The, 255. 
Officious Government officials, 51. 

Practice in County Coui-ts, 222. 

Preliminary Examination, 34G. 

Privilege of the Profession, 275. 

Probata and Divorce Sittings Papers and Cause 

Lists, 14. 
Professional Eemuneration, 180. 
Public Prosecutors, 311. 
Queen's Bench Commissions for Oaths, 274. 
Railway Inspectors as Advocates, 104. 
Registrarship of the Lord Mayor's Court, Tlio, 

Relations between the two branches of the Profes- 

siou, 222. 
Salaries of Lawyers' Clerks, 50. 
School Board Prosecutions, 143. 

or University of Law Bill, The, 456. 
Searches, inquiries, and notices, 435. 
Sect. 4 of the Attorneys' Act of 1H43, 312. 
Service of Summons upon a liailway Company, 

Shorthand Writers in Bankruptcy, 291, 312. 
Solicitor elected Mayor — Correction, 61. 

going to the Bar, 435. 

Remuneration, 34. 
Stamp and Attorneys' Acts and unauthorised I'er- 
sous preparing Leases, The, 435. 

on Building Society Mortgages, 14, 34. 
Ten Years' Law Clerks, 255, 292, 311. 
Transfer of Land, 346. 
Unauthorised Practitioners, 237. 
Unqualified persons as Advocates in Polico Courts, 

Vendor and Purchaser Act 1874, The, 85, 123. 
Was it Murder ? 364. 
Welsh County Courts, 383. 
Wills and Bs^neata, 123. 


Names op Cases. 
Adams r. Boodle, 324. 
Addie r. The London and North Western Railway 

Company, 137. 
Ashford t>. Benson, 138. 
Baume r. Addison, 136. 
Baverstock v. Cox, 29. 
Bercke v. Great Western Railway, 9. 
Birounishaw v. Midland Railway Company, 119. 
Bolwell r. Dawson, 100. 
Botling, ex parte ; re Bostel, 122. 
Boynton v. Bull, 380. 
Breckan c. Pinhey, 361. 
Breconshire Coal and Lime Company, The, v. The 

Brecon and Merthyr Railway Company, 395. 
Carr and others v. Ankers and another, 289 
Carter v. Crane, 300. 
Crossley v. Rhodes, 101. 
Davies v. Cwmfelin Tin Plato Company, 344. 
Davies ti. Jones, 66. 
Deeley f. London and North Western Railwav 

Company, 48. 
Domakin v. Johnson, 119. 
Eddison v. Hick, 415. 
Elliott, IT, 121. 
Flitters ». Allfrey, 307. 
Gaunt and another v. Brook, 186. 

'^'ioT ^""^ '^°' "' ^"*'' ^°*'*™ Railway Company, 
Great Western Railway Company r. Johnson, 216. 
Harris v. Thomas, 253. 
Harrison c. The Great Northern Railway Company, 

Hartley i\ Moore, 262. 

Haywcoil II. Lucas, 102. 

heaih r. London and North Western Railway Com- 
pany, 415. •' 

Horstall V. The Midland Railway Company, 103. 

Howe f. Lo veil, 118. ' 

James and others i-. Ireland and others, 324. 

Jay V. London and North Western Railway Com. 

pany, 361. ' 

Johns, re William, 139. 
Jones V. Smith, 176. 

and others v. Peters and others, 7. 

■ Thomas and Morgan, 159. 

Le Blanch p. London and North Western Railway 

Company, 66. 
Lewis V. Great Western IUilff»y Conipany, 137, 

London and North Western Railway Company c. 

Turner, 80. 
London and North Western Railway Company v. 

Whecldon, 103. 
Marking v. Headley, 48. 
Mawie f. London and North Western Railway 

Company, 379. 
Moore v. Henderson, 28. 
Moifran r. Castree, 390. 
Needham v. Loudon and North Western Railway 

Company, 8. 
North Eastern RaUway Company v. Clark and 

others, 80. 
Payne v. The South Eastern liailway Company, 

Proprietors of Plymouth Pier v. Owners of the iron 

steamship Pioneer, 290. 
Reeves v. Davies and Perkins, 361. 
Kendall v. Downes, 379. 
Rose and another v. Clemitson, 48. 
Bnshworth r. Lawton, 343. 
Samuel c. Midland Railway Company, 136. 
Sears v. Great Eastern Railway Company, 397. 
Sefton r. Whitiaker, 395. 
Shaw V. Taylor, 433. 
Shepherd v. Straker, 8. 
SUnley v. Peach, 118. 
Steeds, re, 27. 

Tipping V. The Midland Railway, 102. 
Tour f. Fern, 324. 
Vipan and another r. Warner, 343. 
Warren v. Great Western Railway Company. 414. 
Watton V. Laslett, 81. ' 

White V. Hughes, 120. 
Willett r. Grey, 119. l^ 

Williams V. Wells, 362. ^ 

Winn V. Hill and others, 176. 
Wool/, re Solomon, 27. 
Woolnough V. Ringwood, 28. 
Wyatt V. London, Brighton, and South Coast Ball 
way Company, 137. 

Subjects of Cases. 
Accotintant, Action against, 118. 
Admiralty— Damage to pier— Claim in rem, 290. 
Agent not allowed to appear, 119. 
Agistment— Negligence, 306. 
Arbitration— Practice, 216. 
Attorney, Breach of contract by, 100. 
Attorocyv, Tli« Jud^e aad ttiv, iXi, 

Bailiff, Assault on, 324. 

Bills of Sale— Advance to debtor— Defeating and 
delaying creditors — Intention — Enabling debtor lo 
withdraw bills, 139. 
Carriers' Act, Construction, 415. 

Carrierof poods— Warehouse charges— Liability 

of Consignee, 80. 
Delay in delivery— Measure of damagea^Proflta 

and wages paid not recoverable, 453. 
Estoppel- Owner's risk, 397. 
Liability, 103. 

Loss by felony of servants, 136. 
Luggage — Samples, 453. 

Of Passengers— Unpunctuality, 48, 102, 119 
137, 414. ' ' 

Passengers— Broach of Contract, 103. 
Passengers— Conditions, 216. 
Negligence— Delay— Breach of Contract, 301. 
Taking special train — Damages, 117. 
Onus of Proof — Evidence — Admissibility— 

Cost of special train, 66. 
Passengers Contract, 272. 
Void regulation, 0. 
Child's Maintenance— Parents' Liability, 28. 
Claim against a Solicitor, 380. 
Collision — Rule of the road, 29. 
Committal of a Newcastle Solicitor, Application for 

the, 8. 
Contract— Not accepting goods-i-Safflcient notice- 
Damages, 843. 
County Court Agents, 433. 

Bailiff, assault upon — Appointment of snb- 
bsiliff— Seizure under an unregistered Dill of 
Sale within twenty-one days, 27. 
Judge for North Wales, The New, 10. 
Orders, 344. 

W^arrants- Wrongful seilure— Damages atfains 
the Bailiff, 28. 
Debt Collectors— Contempt, 342. 
Default summons-Defence— Statement of grotmds 

—Time for, 451. 
Donatio mortis caujo— Gift of note upon bank for 
money deposited — Deposit note — What ccnsti- 
tutes ? 102. 
Drainage of land— Causing water to flow in an- 

natural quantities over adjoining land, 66. 
Election expenses— Corrupt practice, 81. 
Equitable jurisdiction of County Court— Conlribu* 

tion— Charge, 119. 
Equity- — Decretal order — foro) 

Digitized by 

y Google 

June 19, 1875.] 



EqnitT— Salt— Bestninfaig— Harried wonun next 

Iriend. 27. 

Wm— Adminiatntinn, 289. 
Executors' contraota — Warnuity, breach ol— Power 

of Amendment, 101. 
Fencing the Inok of a river— Absence of evidence o^ 

legal obHgation to fence, 379. 
Fiaherr, BiKhtof, 188. 
Friendly Society — Jurisdiction — Saspenaion of 

bonasea, 824. 
HaUfax Connty Coart, 861. 
Uigh BaililTs dotiee— Constmctioii of co-relatiTe 

sections in tmrepealed ,parts of statutes— Oostg, 

Husband and wife— Wife's separate propertr— Tnut 

Fund, 27. r e' J 

Illegal aiireement— Trades Unionism, 169. 
Interpleader, 324. 

Bona fides of a deed— Practice, 896. 
Description of mortgagor under Bills of Sale 
Act, 48. 
Joint Stock Companies' Act 1862— Bill of Exchange 
—Acceptance on behalf of company, 80. 

Judgment— Estoppel — BeiaoTal by defendant- 
Costs, 307. 
Leeds County Conrt— The Hew Judges, 396. 
Market tolls— Jnrisdiction—Market Clauses Act, 

Master and servant — Discharge without notice- 
Damages, 844. 
Measure of damages— Breach of contract by non- 
delivery, 48. 
Money club— LiaUlity to action, 824. 
Money had and received— Allegation of felony — 

Suspension of civil injury, 343. 
Mew trial. Application for, 8. 
Bnilway and Canal Traffic Act 1854— Special con- 
tract by railway company— Cnreasoaable con- 
ditions, 379. 
Company— Liability for damage by sparks from 

engine, 187. 
Negligence, 895. 

Place of business— Jurisdiction, 361. 
Bight to charge consignee with carriage, 103. 
TTnpunctaality, 137. 
Bight CI water— Interference— Damages, 253. 

Boads— Fences — Liability to maintain— Incloeure 

Act, 118. 
Sale— Application to set aside rights of mortgagee, 
By auction— Trade Marks Act— Special oon- 

tiact, 416. 
Of horse— DefKMit-Horse stolen— Eecovery of 
deposit, 862. 
Solicitor- AUeged neglbence— Liability, 120. 
Npedfio performance — Purchase Bight to title- 
Secondary evidence, 268. 
Stakeholder — Cheques deposited with- Lawful 

game— Bight to recover, 8. 
Time within which to bring action — Lapse — Juris- 
diction, 861. 
Trade nsage — Liability for defects in work, 450. 
Mode of charging as between spinner and 
manufacturer —Priority , as between rpioner 
and purchaser- Belative rights and Uaulities, 
Unqualified person appearing as an advocate 

Wrongful and exoeesive execution, 176. 


Aird's Civil Laws of France, 266. 

Austin's Lectures on Jurisprudence, 391. 

Bliss's Law of Life Insaranoe^ 161. 

Browne's Usages and Customs, 819. 

Brown's Law Dictionary and Institute of tbo whole 

Law, 160. 
Bncklmr's Law and Practice under the Companies 

Act, 410. 
Cave's Addison on Contracts, 890. 
Charley's Beal Property Acts, 24. 
Chute^ Equity unoer the Judicature Act, 77. 
Collier's Law of Contributories, 319. 
Crump's Principles of the Law of Marine Insurance 

and Qeneral Average, 428. 
Cnrrie's Indian Criminal Code, 23. 
Deane's Principles of Conveyancing, loO. 
Digln's Introduction to the Law m Beal Property, 

Famfield's Law of Pilotage, 161. 

Farwell's Treatise on Powms, 76. 

Flaxman's Bbgistration of Births and Deaths, 319. 

Fry's Tftocination, 819. 

Fulton's Mannal of Constitutional History, 266. 

Qachea' Town Councillors and Bnrgesses' Manual, 

Greenwood's Magisterial and Police Guide, 77 
Oriffitks' third e£tion of Snell's Equity, 77. 
Hall's Essay on the Sea Shore, 410. 
High's Treatise on Extraordinary Baaaedies, 23. 
HiUiard's Law of Injunctions, 301. 
Indermaur's Conveyancing and Equity Cases, 21. 
Law, The, 24. 

Leake's Law of Property in Land, 150. 
Lettg's Diaries, 151. 
Lynch aiid Smith's Introduction to the Final 

Examination, 150. 

Maine's History of Inaiitationa, 801. 

Haroy's Conveyancing Statutes, 802. 

MoncdefTs Liabilities of Innkeepers, 151. 

Oke's Xicensing Law, 151. 

Phillimore'a Commentaries upon International Law, 

Pitt-Taylor's Bankruptcy Act and Debtor's Act, 

Sedgwick's Treatise on the Bnles which Oovorn 

the Interpretation of Statutory and Constitutional 

Law, 409. 
Story on Contracts, 418. 
Thompson's Lawyer's Companion and Diarr, 

Wharton's Law of Negligenc^ 802. 
Whitely's Licensing Acts, 266. 
Wooirs Law of Adulterations, 15L 


American Law Beview, The, 229. 
Ancient Lights, The Law of, 130. 
Appellate Jnrisdiotioa of the House of Lords, The, 


The, 426. 
Bankruptcy Decisions of 1874, Digest of the, 169, 

188, 209, 227, 246, 2S8, 801, 317, 854. 
Jurisdiction, 889. 
Bar and the House of Commons, The, 435. 

iSxaminatlons, The, 352. 
Bunding Societies Act, The, 169, 189, 209, 228. 
•* Burning Questions " in the Legal Profession, The, 

Construotive Murder, 443. 
Contracts partly performed: I>ower of Equity to 

rescind on the ground of fraud, 372. 
Costs, Beoent Decisions on the Law of, 210, 22(k 
Counsel's Fees, 21. 

Crimes of Violence and their Bepresslon, 75. 
« Devilling " at the Bar, 3. 
Donationes Mortis Causa, 246^ 
£ffeot npon Contract of Bribing Agent, 885, 

Equitable Waste, Sir O. Jessel on, 39. 

Boropean Assurance Arbitration, The, 245. 

Exceptions in Bills of Ladiiu;, 816. 

Family Arrangements in Compromise of Future 

Bights, 282. 
Felony bv Carrier's Servants, 98. 
Intereeted Justices — Waiver of Objection, 388. 
Invalid Adjudications in Bankruptcy, 22. 
Joint Stock Companies — Some Decisions on the Law 

of, 4, 40, 111. 
Judicature Bill, The New, 426. 
Jurisdiction of County Courts, The, 317. 
Land Transfer BQl, 'The, 371. 
L«nl Departments Commission and Equity Courts, 

The Beport of the, 57. 
Liability of Solicitors for Bad Investments, 389 
Lord Chaneellor, The, and Dr. Kenealy, 57. 
Marine Insurance, Specimens of a Code of, 149. 
Measure of Damans, The, 487. 
Methods of enforcmg Agreements in Compromise of 
Pending suits, 443. 

Negotiable Instruments, 353. 

Patent Law Amendment BiU, The, 334. 

Privilege of Medical Beports, The, 227. 

Proceedings in County Courts, 149. 

Purging Felonies, 368. 

Bailway Passenger Duty, 129. 

Boadworthy Carriages, 148. 

Searches, Inquiries, and Notices, 299, 836, 873, 109 

Stock Exchange Gambling, 6. 
Stroud Writ, The, 263. 
Supreme Court of Judicature Act, The, 22, 69, 93, 

112, 190, 266. 
Tipperary Election Petition, The, 871. 
Title to and Transfer of Land^81. 
Transfer of Stock by Harried Women, The, 318. 
Two Decisions under the Leases and Sales of S< ttled 

Estates Amendment Act 1874, 800. 
Vendors and Purchasers' Act 1874, The, 58, 94, 299^ 

And its Interiireters, 170. 
Vesting ot Legacies, The, 264. 
Warranty of Seaworthiness, The, 8. 

Digitized by 


vi — Index] 


[June 19, 1875. 


Abrsm, W., 384. 
Allen, J. E., 366. 
Atldn, W., 331. 
AuH, J., 438. 
Anetin, C, 163. 
Bain, Serjeant, 223. 
Battersby-Harford, J. H., 2fl4. 
Bothamley, T. H. 
Brandt, F. F., 125. 
Brown, C. G., 124. 
Bnrges, D., 87. 
Cabbell, B. B., 124. 
Carlyon, E. A., 331. 
Cbisenhale-Marsh, T. C, Sol. 
Cholmley, Sir G., 181. 
Christie, J. T., 277. 
Cochrane, G., 366. 
Collins, W. A., 457. 
Dawson, G., 163. 
Elger, G. G., 63. 
Farquhar, J., 366. 
Fisher, Sir. J. H., 258. 
Fletcher, A., 331. 
Foeter, Sir \Vm., Bart, 124. 

Foulkes, E., 241, 208. 

Grant, J. R., 331. 

Graves. R., 163. 

Gray, J., 241. 

Gregorv, H. L., 313. 

Harvey, C. J., 313. 

Haslewood, E. W., 277. 

Helps, Sir A., 348. 

HeminR, D., 181. 

Hill, W. M., 107. 

Holman, S., 124. 

Hopkins, J. L., 313. 

Hortin, J. H., 313. 

Hunt, R, 366. 

Jackaman, S. B., 366. 

Jebb, S. H., 294. 

Jeffery, C, 294. 

Jessopp, J. F., 331. 

Joy, H. H., 36G. 

Laborie, M., 107. 

Le Marchaut, Sir D., 17. 

Lyell, Sir C, 331. 

Macdonnell, Right Hon. Sir A., 241. 

Mallock, C. H., 291. 

Marshall, G., 331. 
Marshall, T. H., 313. 
Meek, G., 125. 
Measiter, T., 125. 
M'Grath, J. V., 223. 
Mitchell, A. 0., 457. 
Mitchell, J., 384. 
Moysc, G. B., 438. 
Napier, W. J., 107. 
Norton, Hon. G. C, 349. 
O'Malley, P. F., 124 . 
Phipson, aO., T. W.. 223. 
Pomeroy, The Hon. W. K., 53. 
Pook, H,, 163. 
Pratt, H. VV., 366. 
Read, J., 17. 
Read, Judge, 201. 
Reid, B., 403. 
Ring, D. B., 349. 
Robertson, C. G., 107. 
Romilly, Lord, 163. 
Rooth, J. W., ,")2. 
Rowe, Sii-.f., 53. 
Shipman, R. M., 277. 

Hkene, G., 223. 
Smirke, Sir E., 349. 
Spicer, R., 125. 
Stansfleld, J., 125. 
Stanton, R W., 87. 
Stigaut, G. C, 291. 
Still, R., 384. 
St. Leonards, Lord. 256. 
StoUand, W., 31.!. 
Sworder, T., 403. 
Tatbam, M., 457, 
Thompson, D., 349. 
Trustman, W. P., 403, 4-57 
Upton, A. T., 366. 
Voysey, A., 403. 
Vincent, A. F.. 438. 
Waldron, L., 438. 
Walker, H., 71. 
Walmislev, W. E., 22,J. 
Waraer, E., 366. 
Westbury, Lord, 403. 
Yarburgh, G. J., 38L 
Young, J,, 145. 


Appelliila Jurisdiction of the House of Lords, 320. 

The Judicature Act, 428. 
Appointment of Magistrates, 302. 
Baby Fanning, 375. 
Bankruptcy Law in Ireland, 337. 

Law Amendment Bill (Scotland) 357. 
Bills of Sale. 303. 

Act Amendment, 320. 
Cab Law, 446. 
Contempt of Court, 367. 
County Courts, 445. 
Drawing of Bills, The, 303. 
Ecclesiastical Legislation, 320. 
European Assurance Bill, The, 320. 

Society Arbitration, 247. 
Foreign Loans Committee, Sir U. James aud the, 

Friendly Societies, 260. 
Highways. 267, 
Indian Legislation, 420. Copyright, 284. • 

Judges and Juries, 429. 
Judicature Act, The, 266, 374. 

Bill (Ireland) 303. 
Judicial Interference with Juries. 375. 

Statistics, 134. 
.Jury Law, 337. 

Justices of the Peace Qualification Bill, 283. 
Lady Dudley's Jewels, 337. 
Landed Estates Bill, The, 337. 
Landed Titles and Transfer Bill, 171, 191, 266, 

320,355 . 
Letters Patent, 283. 
Magisterial Bench, The, 428. 
Marine Insurance, 356. 
Marriage Laws, The. 374. 
Merchant Shipping, 266. 
Municipal Elections, 284. 
Nature of the ("ontrnct of Agency, 441. 
New Law Courts, The, 267. 


Observations on Providing mp.ans for Preserving 
results of Examination of Land Titles, 172. 

Parliamentary and Municipal Elections Act, The. 

Patent Laws. The, 320. 

Register of Electors, 355. 

Remuneration by Commission, 151. 

Salaries of Metropolitan Police Magistrates, 320, 337. 

Simony, 26(;. 

Supreme Conrt of Judicature, 42, 60, 78, 95. 115 
133. - t , . 

Act (1873) Amendment Bill, 302. 

(No. 2) Bill, The, 445. 
Suspending Writs, 267. 
Tichbome Trial, The, 440. 
Trade Marks, 375. 
Trial of Election Petitions, 31).). 
Welsh County Courts, 337. 

Withdrawal of the Judicature Amendment Bill 


Affiliation — Law and Practice in England and Scot- 
land, 269, 306, 342. 

Aggravated assault — Powers of police to arrest 

Animals, Cruelty to, 116. 

Assessment of Sporting Rights, 26. 

Bastardy Act— Sessions at which Apjwal to be 
made, 2149. 

Boni Fide Traveller, The, 26. 

C»ttl8 Plague Order, Infringement of— Cosls, 

Costs of Prosecutions, 413. 

Courts for Trial by Jury, 378. 

Forgery — Comparison of iiandwriting — Evidence of 
skilled witnesses, 379. 

Uailsham I'otty Sessions — Resignation of the magis- 
trates' clerk, 175. 

Justfces' clerks' fees, 194. 

Level crossing — Statutory liability — M.igi8trate8 
jurisdiction, 65. 

Licensing Act— Extent of publican's liability- 
Lodgers of subtenant, 360. 

Master and Servant cases. Competency of magis- 
trates to try, 155. 
Act, The, 233. 

Middlesex Sessions House, 286. 

Publicans' licence— Forfeiture for felony — Licensing 
Act retrospective, 233. 

Rating— Interested justices— Waiver of objection, 

Recent possession of stolen poods— Evidence. 214. 

Unauthorised persons— Fictitious process, 323. 

Yearly tenants and railway extension, 100. 

digitized by 


Jtjnb 19, 1875. 1 


[Index— vii 


AdminUtnlion of Jnstico, The Cost of, 196. 
AnuklgMDktioa of the Courts of L«w and Equity, 

Autin, Q.O., Mr. OharlsB, 160. 
Bar and the Hooia of Commona, The, 43L 
Barriaters and Attorneya, and thdr Edacation, 

Bench and Bar, 70. 
ObanoeTyFnnda (Amended) Orders 1874, 164. 

ConeoUdated Bales 1874, 201. 
Ooimpt FiaoticeB PreTention Aots, The, 482. 

Oonncil of Legal Education, SO, 270. 

Ooonty Court Ordera, 844. 

Oonrt ot Probate Additional Bolee, 87. 

Examinations at the Incorporated Law Sooiety, 

198, 806. 
Fees on Printed Copies of Orders, 168. 
General Caniers' Act 1880, The, 882. 

Examination of Students of the Inns of Court, 

Orders in Lunacy, 168L 
Insnranoe Companies and their Cnstomen, 449. 

Insurance Compantsa, the Litnidation of, 284. 

Irish Law Offloerg, The, 104. 

Keating, Retirement of Mr. Jnstice, 254. 

Kenealy, Dr., 288. 

Land Transfer, 805, 828. 

Uarine Insurance (Foreign Coanttlee), 488. 

Hnnicipal Election Petition, 185. 

Power of a Mortgagor to serre a Notice to Qnitt 

The, 865. 
Professional attiie, 416. 
Wm OiSoe, The New, St. 


Aoknowledgment by married woman of deed of 
reoogtJsanoe, 51, 276, 866. 

Adminiatering oaths — Legal obligation, 265. 

Administration — Deposit of money — Legal dis- 
charge, 199. 
Mortgage of property— Sale by public auction, 

Appointment of new trustee — Befnsal of late 

trustee to sign any power of attorney, 180. 
Apportionment Act 1870— Praotioe— Devise of real 
estate— InsdvencT, 292. 
Devise of speciflo part of real estate, 222. 
Of titles— Incoming tenant, 199. 
Aitloled clerk— Appointing a deputy, 68. 
Assignment to snrviving partner, 51. 
FiniU examination, 883. 
Holding office^ 276. 
Articles of association— Preliminary examination, 

Assault— Bemedy, 402. 
Attachment— Deotor and creditor — Invested money, 

Attested oopy— Stamp— Progressive duty, 883. 
Attorneys' articled olerks, 162. 
Bankruptcy Act 1869, 68. 

Equity of redemption— Annulling bankruptcy 

^Eieconveyanoe, 292. 
Liquidation, 402. 

Meeting of creditors — ^Besolntion— Liquidation 
hj arrangement— Appointment of trustee— 
Oompo^on, 846. 
Petition, 199. 

Untaxed biUof oosU— AdjadioaU»n, 144. 
Bequest of books— Deficiency— Testator's general 

estate, 866. 
BiU of sale— Bankruptcy, 86. 
Booka for final exa min ation, 84. 
Building society — Certificate of incorporaUoo, 
Mortgage, 829. 

Exsmpuoii from Stamp Duty, 84. 
Case wanted— Parish expenses, 418. 
Change of surname, 86. 

UaUlity— Drawing mortgages, 435. 
Clerks to justices— 6alai7 in lieu of fees, 883 
Commission to examine witnesMt— Practice, 237. 
Common Bights, 124. 

Compulsory purchase by railway company— Com- 
pensation, 27& 
Conditional suneoder— Adoiittanoe, 144. 
Constitutional law, 162. 
Conveyance— Freehold mortgaged by appointment, 

Conveyancing — Assignment, 68. 

Devise of real and personal estate— Power of 

trustee, 846. 
Sale of land— Covenant to produce deeds— Sub- 
stituted covenant, 162. 
Conviction— Ineeulailty— Constant ocouirsnce, 812. 
Copyhold land— Bight of way, 864. 

Tmstees—Bevorsionary Interest, 86. 
Coroner's Law— Verdict of jury— To what number 

restricted, 128. 
Cost of repairs under devise of nal estate— Bequest 

of personal estata, 275. 
Oross-«xamination<-8nmmons in bastardy — Magis- 
trate's objection to questions, 144. 

Decision wanted— Damags dona to tenant's crop by 
rabbits, 84. 

Deed — Acknowledgment, 84. 

Of separation— Conveyance bf wife, 485. 

Devise of trust aud mortgage estate, 61. 

Distress for rent — Inventorjr — Demands, 84. 

Distribution of assets — ^Liabilities, 16. 

Division of personal property of inteetate, 276. 

Dower — Deotaration — Purchase deed, 188. 
Devisee t9 freehold propert;^, 5L 

Drainage— Prohibition of drainmg into open drains, 

Enjoyment of light — Proposed new wall — Encroach- 
ment, 292, 812. 

Evidence— Written agreement improperly stamped, 
864. • 

Examination after expiration of vtisles, 456. 

Execution — ^No speoiflc assertion, 86. 

Exemption from service under articles, 292. 

ISxpiration of aitidee— Examination, 198. 

Final examinatioD, 237, 456. 

Incorporated Law Society, 275, 812. 

Fishing Aots— Bights of fishermen at sea, 86. 

Fraudulently endorsing cheque — ^Remedy, 222. 

Furnished apartments— Notice to quit, 162. 

General Highway Act— Batione Tennns, 84, 68. 

Gun licence— Wild Birds Protection Act, 86. 

Husband and Wife — Joint-etook shares — Testator's 
personal sstate, 199. 
Bights to Curtesy— Beal property— Separate 
uscl 123 

Insuringdefeotive title, 883. 

Intermediate examination, 292. 

Judicature Act, 466. 

Iowa States V. B. — Power of attorney, 466. 

Jurisdiction ef English Courts— Person resident in 
Ireland, 86. 

JUrymen^ExempUon from serving, 123. 

Landlord and Tenani— Agreement — Notice to quit, 
BOl of sale— Bemoval— Subsequent distress by 

landlord, 124. 
Purchase of lands, 124. 

httpan Besidiry legatees, 846. 

Lawyersia Oknada, 864. 

Lease— Oovenaat — Increase of rent — Stamp, 180. 
Proviso, 86. 

Legacy— Gift of, 812. 

Lioendng Act, 1874, 276. 

Lodgers* Protectton Act, The— Signing of declara- 
tion, 106. 

Lunatio co-tenant — Custody of title deeds -g 
Covenant to produce, 222. 

MagistratssF Oourti— Power to exclude, 456 

Managing derim in County Courts— Attorney's 

Manorial Courts— Jurisdiction, 15. 

Marked goods— Exposed goods not bound ta be sold 
at the marked piiie, 144. 

Marriage— Freehold esUtes, 86. 

Married woman — ^Acknowledgment of deed, 123. 
Husband and lunatic — Letters of administra- 
tion, 287. 

Master and Servants Act— Conspiracy to mislead 
master, 19& 

Minute book— Evidence, 418. 

Mortgaged proporU — Equitabls asourity— Con> 

podttott witii orediton, 222. 
Interest in arrear, 222. 
Joint acconnt—EJfeotual discharge^ 162. 
National scte>ols-Dismissal of children— Written 

rules— Inspection, 61. 
Naturalisation- Exemption from military duties, 

New rules under the Judicature Act, The^ 418. 
Notice for attending examination, 292. 

To quit, 51. 
Order to dispense with Preliminary ExaainatiOD, 

Poor rate assessment, 237. 
Practitioners before magistrates, 456. 
Printed lists of successful candidates, 292. 
Babbits — Damage done by, 15. 

Babbits — Damage done by, ] 
Bailway unpanotuality, 61. 
Beading for Final, 124. 

Befusal of trus tees to ac^Oopybold tenant— Mort- 
of property- Devise of real estate to trustees, 

Bepl-chaige— Purchase of land and tithas— Con- 
veyance, 86. 
Beveniou — Mortgage — Personal property — Equi. 

table charge, 61. 
Bevised statute, 486. 
Bight of accused to assistance of counsel, 144. 

To distrain — Possession of goods by trustee, 61. 
Bente— Payment of prooeeda, 16. 
Sale of copyhold — Tenant on the rolls — Admittance 

and surrender, 34. 
Solicitor to company — Salary in lieu of all costs 
payable or recoverable, 68. 

Ciuives— Frediold property — Sale; 105. 

Lien, 276. 
Speoific performance^ 68. 

Stamps of articles for clerkship — Penalties for 
delay, 61. 

On mortgages to bnOding societies, 84. 
Succession duty — Bequest o( real aud leasehold 
property, 124. 

LUehold intereet, 86. 
Surrender to uses, 144. 
Taking out certificates, 16. 
Telegraph m e s sag e Post Offlce stamping, 883. 
Tenancy— Lest agreement— Notice to quit, 86. 
Tenant— Damage by rabUts, 466. 

liiaUlity to unpaid rates and taxes, 486. 
Ten years' law clerks, 866. 
Tithe— Apportionment, 888. 
Toll through a turnpike gate, 6& 
Tru ste es Power to reduce interest on trust fund, 61. 
Vendors and Purchasers' Act, 1874— Oonstructioa 
—Conveyance of Iraal estate^ 864. 

Beal property — Married woman's sinaratei 
Conveyance— Equitable estate, 222. 
Volunteer officers— Travelling privileges of, 812. 
Weekly servants, 84. 
Will— Bequeet of shares, 16. 

Construction, 6L 

Devise of mi and personal property, 829. 

Estate— Conveyauoev 222. 

Property— Trusts, 402. 

Legacy, 266. 
WiUiout prejudice, 199. 
Witnesses to indentor* of ^fCMitiaeshi^ 466. 

Digitized by 


viii — ^Inbbx] 


[June 19, 1875. 


Addis, T. 0, 68. 
Andrswi, W- 68. 
Anson, Sir W. R, 71. 
Aston, P. T., 259. 
Atklnton, O. H., 53. 
Atkinson, J. G., SOI. 
Bath, E., 107. 
Bennett, J. 0. O., 185. 
Bceant, A., 877. 
Brooki, O. H., 467. 
Bmnton, W. W, 162. 
Baohu»n, B., 489. 
Buoklay, Mr., 228. 
GUrka, Mr., 241. 
OoUins, W. B., 189. 
OoomboL J.,228. 
Cooper,^., 241. 
Ooote, H. 0., 467. 
Oorar, J. B, 831. 
Coirqr, E.C.,467. 

Doyle, Sir Wm. H., 421. 
EdwkTds, J. K. 241. 
Elborough, C. M., 831, 3«7. 
Elwortby, J., 223. 
Footner, k, 885, 403. 
Ford, 0, 294, 457. 
Godfrey, A. 8., 867. 
Oreen,E., 228. 
Gretham, T-, 85. 
Halen, J., 277. 
Hamel, L. V„ 849. 
Hamlyn, P. W. 0., 89. 
Heales, A., 457. 
Hellard, A , 89. 
Hiokmao, W. J^ 71. 
Holmea, B. A., 201. 
Howard, J., 89. 
Haggard, 8., 408. 
Innes, J. O. hy, 239. 

Irvine, Mr., 277. 
Johnson, B. N., 277. 
Knott, A. W., 867. 
Lanwame, T., 145. 
Lawson, A., 201. 
Letbbridge, 0., 881. 
Llveaay, J. J., 63. 
Lloyd, C, 201. 
Lynch, H. F., 421. 
Maclean, A. T., 63. 
MaopherKtn, W., 63. 
Manson, 0. F.. 6S. 
Marten, A., 107. 
Mason, B. 8. 259. 
Millar, Q., 53. 
Monckton, Mr., 381. 
Owen, M., 408. 
Paterson, 3. C, 68. 
Poorch, B., 68. 
Fritduurd, W. T., 467. 

BaM, T. O., 68. 
Bllej, aL..259. 
Blvifiigton, 0. B., 277. 
Bobbing 0., 844, 885. 
Bogers, O. A., 457. 
Bogen, M., 223. 
Bnanll, T. a, 885. 
Smith, G. G., 867. 
Smith, W. B., 71. 
Smith, W. P. H., 17. 
Stokes, H., 457. 
Swarbreok, E. D.. 107. 
Sydney, P. d, 457. 
Thomas, J., 489. 
Todd, W, 408. 
Van Sandao, P. E., 107, 277. 
Walton, T., 63. 
WhaUey, P., 63. 
Wicks, H. P., 63. 


Articled Clerk— Non-Nglstration o( Articles within 
six months of ExeenUon, 26. 
Stamping snd Enrolment of Copy of Lost 
Attoniay— Application foroertiflcate— Mlsconduct,63 
Attorney's Table, The, 804. 
Contempt of Court, 804, 

Court of Common Conuoil, 249. 

Mayor's Oonrt— Prohibition— Jnrisdiction, 448. 

Misconduct of Attorney — Answering Affidavits — 

Liability to be stmok off the Bolls, 44. 
Fraotic»— Taxation, 412. 
Prohibitions to the Lord Mayor's Court, 63. 
BemuneratioQ of Solicitors, The, 158, 

Security for Costs— Jurisdiction— PUinttfTs funda 

in hands of Defendant, 232. 
Solicitor— Libel by, 64. 
Taxation of Costs— Improper Issue of Subpoinas for 

purpose of, 249. 
Threat to Commit a Solicitor for Contempt of 

Court, 176, 

Digitized by 






®0 g^aJrtrs anb €axttsfia}xbmi»* 

O. A. DArxKPOBT.— Ton have allowed too long a time to elapee. We oaanot now 
aaoertaln the addreu. 

Asumjmoua oonunomcationa are luTarlably rejected. 

An oommimlcatioiui moat be authenticated by the name and addresB of the writer 
not neoeeaarily for publication, but aa a ruuantee of yood faith. 

All commnnicationB intended for the Ediiob op thb SozJciToaa' DsFXBTXEirr 
should be so addressed. 



Ponr lines or fAirfy word* 8s. Sd. | Every additional tm word* Os. dd 

AdTertisements epedally ordered for the flret puce are charged one-fonrth more 
than the above icale. 

AdvertiBements most reach the Office not later than five o'clock on Thurtiav 
utemoon, ' 


The volnmee of the Law Times, and of the Law Timxs EBPonTS, are strongly and 
uniformly bound at the Offioe, as completed, for 5s. 6d. for the JoonuO. and 4. 6d. 
for the Reports. 

Portfolios for preserrlng the current numbers of the Law Tikis, price 5s. 6d: 
Law Timbs Bbpobts, price 3s. 6d, » »r » 



ItAixa r. Zed EX-- 

aukataolder — Intorpleodei^ Parties— 
Cocto— UDdartikktxis aa to damaftti— 
Inquiry - „„ SSI 


Trade mark— LapM of Ume— Prmadu- 
Icnt Intention- iQjoiy to plalutUT— ' 

Injnnetlon „ 3EB 

Poxox t*. Oascoioks— 

fiollcitor'a lien— "Property reoovered 

or preserved" «.„ ^ ^ 380 


LoMor and lessee— Underleue—Core- 
nant not to aulgn or tmderlet witbout 
leesor'a oonaent .,™«.^ ™..... 291 

V.C, BACON'S comiT. 
Aeros V. WOOD— 

will — Conatractlott — Partloolar or 

Scnend rea Idue — Ademption — MU- 
eacrlption ,...^ 393 



Psrtoerthlp of banker* — Dlrectore 

deellBff with partnership propertT 

for their prlrate benefit— Liability to 

refond „ 396 

Sale of iron rails— Delivery by Instal- 
ments—Poiliire of boyw to pay for 
one Instalment....^. ». „„„ 906 


Incloeore Aot— Beaermtlon olanev— 
Bights of the lord of fhe maDor.......M 300 


The London TaAMWATS Co. (LturrED) 
(appe.) V. Trb Ambmicbnt Committu 
or Xahbbtb (reaps.)— 
BaUnc — Assessment — Tramways — 
0«neral expeoses «.....„......„ S19 




Toploaot the Week . 

*' BevlUlnr" at the Bar ,««...«„,. 3 

TheWnrrunfcy of SeuworthlnoM ...„ S 

Some DecUluos on the Law of Joint-Stock 

Companies „ „ „„ 

Stock ExcbiUiKe Oainbllnic «. 

SOLiciTOBs' JocaxAL (Edited by a BoUol* 

Topics of the Week ^ -......,«.,...«...., 

Notes of New Dcclslona... 

Unclaimed Stock end i>lrldcnda tn'tbe 

Bank of Bnjfland ., 7 

' AppointmeDts undw ibe Joint Stock 

WlndinK-up Acta _ T 

Creditors under Entatee in Chancery. 7 

Creditors under sa & 23 VIcL c. 35 7 

Beportflof Soles ., 7 


Chester County Court .,« 7 

Driffield County Court — «.™... 8 

Newcastle County Court ..«. - S 

Beading County Court 8 

The New County Court Judira for North 
Wales .«...„ „ „ JO 


Notes of New Decisions «....««.™....«™«. 10 

Court of Bankruptcy ...^^ 10 

Bradford Counts Court 11 

Bristol County ODurt «...,.-. -. 11 

Derby County Court - 11 

Newcastle-upon-Tyne County Court 13 

Tunbridge wells Banknipt<v Court 13 

Wolverhampton County Court ..„,.«. «. 13 

Legal News —......«.«.. ««....,..,»« U 

Law Students' Joitrnal— 
CouBcU of Loral Education »......«. 14 


Notes akd QimaiBS os points or Pbao> 

Ties .^„« «...««.-.....-. 15 


Incorporated Law Sodety ................... M 

SoUeltora' Benevolent Association 10 

Articled Clerks' Sootety ™... IT 

Portsmouth Law Students' Society ...»„.. 17 

Sheffield Law Students' Socdety „ 17 

Hull Law Students* Society ..»»..«.„....... 17 


. 17 

Legal Obituaht ,.,,. . 

THB OAZSTTKS ...„„,..».»»......»..„. 

Births, mabbxaobsi and Dbatbs 

% iTato anir t\t ITafog^rs. 

The public will shortly experience the practical effect of the deci- 
sion of the Court of Exchequer in Atiomey-6«neral v. North 
London Raihoay Company (to which we have so often alluded). 
The London and North-Western and Great Western Bailway 
Companies, between them owning nearly three thousand miles of 
railway, have issued a notice that after the Ist inst. 5 per cent, 
(being the amount of Government duty as per &&& Vict. c. 79) 
will be added to all the third class utres, except in respect of 
genuine Parliamentary trains stopping at every station. It is, we 
TOIi. IiVIIL— Vo. 1649. 

think, to be regretted that this step was not taken long ago, con- 
temporaneously with the first introduction of the quick third-class 
trains. Nobody would then have objected to the additional 5 per 
cent., whereas its sudden imposition at the present time may 
weigh heavily on light purses, and cost the railways much unpopu- 
larity. However, the step will tend to quicken the revision of the 
passenger duty generally. 

At.t. questions that touch upon the great topic of the rights of 
women, married or single, are of very general interest at the 
present day, nor have such questions been unfrequent in our courts 
of law. One of this class will be found r«>orted in the Law 
Times Beports of 31st Oct., in the case of -Summers v. The City 
Bank, which was decided in the Court of Common Pleas. This 
case turned upon the Married Women's Property Act 1870 
(33 & 34 Vict. c. 93), s. 11, the point to be decided being the right 
of a married woman trader to maintain an action against her 
bankers for breach of contract. The plaintiff, who carried on 
business separately from her husband, sued her bankers for 
damages for neglecting to present a bill of exchange, for not 
giving notice of dishonour, and for dishonouring her cheque, 
though they had the requisite funds. Judgment was given for 
the plaintiff, but we should not lose sight of the remark made by 
the Lord Chief Justice : " It does not necessarily follow, because 
a married woman may sue her banker for dishonouring her cheque, 
that the general proposition is true, without qualification, that 
she can maintain an action for damages for breach of contract." 
His Lordship than proceeds to point out the peculiarity of tho 
relationship subsisting between banker and customer, referring 
to the case of Foley v. Hill (2 H. of L. Cas. 28). The construction 
put upon the section was that its provisions were two-fold, first. 
It enables a married woman to " maintain an action " for the reco- 
very of wages, &c. ; secondly, it gives to her " the same remedies, 
both civil and criminal, against all persons whatsoever, for tho 
protection and security of such wages, &c., as if such wages, &c., 
belonged to her as an unmarried woman." It was not cusputed 
by the defendants' counsel that &feme sole had a right of action. 

What construction should be put on the words "die without 
leaving issue K' Such is the question wl^cb, after much litiga- 
tion, has at length been decided by the House of Lords, in the 
case Ingram T. SouUcn (31 L. T. Eep. N. S. 216). The case arose 
out of a decision reported under tho name of Be Heathcote's Trueis 
(L. Rep. 9 Ch. 45; 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 445), the facts of which, as 
far as it is necessary to state them, were as follows : A testator by 
his will dated 1811, bequeathed his residuary personal estate to trus- 
tees, upon trust, to pay the income to his wife for life, and after her 
decease upon trust to p»y the income of one half to his daughter 
Mary and of the other half to his daughter Maria for life ; with a 
gift over in the event of their death without issue, to his two sons ; 
with a gift over in the event of both his sons dying without issue 
to Miiry H., but in case Mary H. shall die without leaving any 
issue living at the time of her decease, then over. The widow 
died in 1823} the two sons died without issue in the lifetime of 
the daughter, who likewise died without issue in 1866. Mary H. 
survived the daughter, and died without issue in 1872. The 
point in dispute was who were entitled to the fund, the represen- 
tatives of Mary H., or the persons claiming under the ultimate 
gift over P In other words; did the expression " die without 
leaving issue " mean death at any time without issue or merely 
death without issue during the lifetime of- the daughter. If we 
look at the question entirely apart from precedents, common sense 
seems to pomt to the former interpretation ; and such was the 
opinion of Vice-Chancellor Maiins. Counsel on behalf of Mrs. 
Soutten's representatives ar^ed that the gift over could not take 
affect unless " death without issue" took }^aoe in the lifetime of 
the B&rviving tenant for life; that courts of equity will not 
willingly allow an absolute gift to be defeated by the limitation 
over; and that Edwards v. Edwards (15 Bear. 357) is a 
clear authority for these views. His Honour, ho'^ever, was 
not prepared to accept the rnld^ laid do<m in that oaa# 
but proceeded to act according to what he conceived to )y 
plain view of the intentions of the testator. " This being a 

Digitized by 



[Nov. 7, 1874. 

series of limitatious — to the testator's widow for life, remainder to 
the daughters for life, remainder to their issue, remainder to the 
sons absolutely, with all executory bequests over to the survivor, 
if either of them died without issue, with a further executory 
bequest over to Maky Heathcote, with a further executory bequest 
over to Mrs. E. if Mrs. S. died without leaving issue. The con- 
sequence is that the petitioners who are Mrs. R.'s representatives 
are entitled to the fund." This decision was reversed by 
the Lords Justices. Lord Justice James thought that Edwards 
T. Edwards should be followed ; that its rules so long acted 
upon are " simple, intelligible, and very beneficial in the adminis- 
tration of testaior's estates." The rule applicable to the present 
case was thus formulated by his Lordship : " Where there is a 
gift to a person not immediately, but a gift which is to vest in 
possession at a futnre time, and a gift over if the legatee should 
die without leaving children living at his decease; in such a case 
there is a rule of construction and a presumption of law that the 
death without issue must mean death without issue before the 
legatee is entitled to call for the actual delivery of a legacy to 
him." That such a rule cuts the Gordian knot there carl" be no 
doubt. By its operation we have a security that property thus 
limited will not be in suspense, yet a moment's consideration 
must show that it is but a cruel expedient to get rid of a technical 
difficulty. It is a needless violation of a better rule ; it cuts away 
the ground from expectations which are not more natural than 
justifiable. The case came on appeal before the House of Lords, 
where the judgment of the Vico-Chancellor's Court was upheld, 
and that of the Lords Justices reversed. The Lokd Chancellor 
(Cairns) says, "So far as the words of this will are concerned, I 
have found nothing whatever in it qualifying the natural meaning 
of the words, 'in case Mary Heathcote shall depart this life 
without leaving any issue of her body, lawfully begotten, living 
at the time of her decease,' and the various other similar expres- 
sions in the will. These words appear to mo clearly to express a 
dying without issue Uving at the time of the death, at whatever 
time that death may take place. . . . Lord Justice Ja'iiks pro- 
ceeds upon the authority of the case of Edwards v. Edwards. . . . 
Ho appears to treat these rules as absolute rules of construction, to 
be applied unless there is something repugnant to them in the 
particular will." But his Lordship could not and would not 
accede to a rule which would alter the natural meaning of words. 
Lord O'Hagan who likewise concurred in the judgment, thought 
that the ratio decidendi in Edwards v. EtUaards did not apply 
here, for in that case the gist of the decisionwas that there was a 
necessity far distributing the fond at a particular period. So by 
the unanimous opinion of their Lordships the judgment of the 
Court of Appeal below was set aside. From whatever side we 
take the case it seems almost a matter of necessity that one should 
concur with this final judgment. Tor, to say nothing of the fact 
that it seems the only decision consistent with the intention of 
the testator as manifested by the will, there is the further fact that 
the case chiefly relied upon to support the o;iposite side is one ratio decidendi is very difiereut. Besides all this, a legislator 
guided by right principles, will aim rather at gratifying than 
deceiving expectations that spring from what is neither illegal nor 

ClIARLY the labours of the eminent juiist Savigky, who devoted 
so much time and stndy to a determination of the elements of 
" possessio" ■were not in vain. A case came recently before the 
Court of Appeal in Chancery {Ex parte Jay, re Blenkhorti, 31 L, T. 
Kep. N. S. 260) which evidently shows that our Judges themsdyes 
are not at one upon a variety of conflicting questions collateral to 
the main question of the nature of possession. Two sisters, who 
kept a school, executed a bill of sale on the 10th Jan. 1873. This 
was never registered. On the 26th Jan. 1873, they executed a 
second bill of sale. On the 10th Feb. 1873, the holders of the 
former bill sent two men to take possession. On tlic following 
day the sisters executed a third bill of sale of all their property to 
the Nottingham Equitable Loan and Discount Company. The 
men went on the 10th Feb., remained till the 14th Feb., but did 
not remove any of the furniture, or prevent the debtors from using 
it, the school being conducted as usual. On the 14th, however, 
they began the work of removal, though this could not be seen 
from the high road. The debtors, later on in the same day, filed 
a petition for liquidation by arrangement. The County Court 
Judge held that the trustee under the liquidation was entitled to 
the chattels removed, inasmuch as they were in the apparent 
possession of the debtor at the time when they committed 
an act of bankruptcy on 11th Feb. The Chief Judge, on appeal, 
reversed this decision, holding that the taking possession of the 
goods by putting the men into possession had removed them from 
the apparent possession of the debtors. This decision was again 
reversed by the Lords Jostices. Lord Justice Mellish states the 
rule' in explicit terms. " The distinction is that if a bailiff is 
simply put in and remains in possession, so as to prevent the 
removal of the furniture, but allowing everything to go on just fts 
it did before . . . then the goods still remain in the apparent 
possession of the debtors. There must be something done which 
takes them plainly in the eyes of everybody who sees them, or who 
is concerned, out of their apparent possession." This is a distinc- 

tion which may be inferred from the cases of Ex parte Lewis (24 
L. T. Rep. N. S. 785; L. Rep. 6 Oh. 626) and Ee -parte Homan (22 
L. T. Rep. N. S. 179 ; L. Rep. 10 Eq. 63). 

Siu George Bowyeb gave notice last session that in committee on 
the Judicature Bill he would propose a clause to the effect that 
all judgments should be in writing. We see no sort of necessity 
for such a clause; the preparation of written judgments would 
occupy judicial time to a far greater extent than would be desir- 
able. The discretion of the Judges as to whether a judgment 
should be oral or written is in general very well exercised, and 
long written judgments are quite common enough as it is, as any 
volume of Reports will testify. In the recent case of Bloomer y. 
Bernstein and another (31 L. T. Rep. N. S. 306), however, in which 
an oral judgment was delivered along with a large number of other 
judgments, by Lord Coleridge on the 8th July last, it is, we 
think, rather a matter of regret that the court did not adhere to 
what we presume to have been its original intention — to give 
judgment in writing. The facts were that the defendants agreed 
to sell iron to the plaintiff, to be delivered during 1872. The iron 
was delivered in instalments, and the plaintifl' failing to pay for 
the second instalment, the defendants repudiated the contract, 
the jury finding that the plaintifl: (who became insolvent shortly 
afterwards) never could have paid the conti-act price, and had 
given the defendants reason to believe that he intended to abandon 
the contract. The court gave judgment for the defendants in an 
action for non-delivery, holding that the case fell within tho 
authority of Withers v. Beynolds (2 B. & Ad. 882), and perhaps 
that authority was not very much strained. But in Withers v. 
Beynolds there were no special findings of the jury, and the 
period of every fortnight was particularly named for the delivery 
of the instalments. In Bloomer v. Bernstein the only period 
named was " during the year 1872," and tho second instalment 
followed the first so very quickly as to raise the doubt whether 
the interval was reasonable. Moreover, the efiect of bankruptcy 
upon a continuing contract is a subject wo should have liked to 
have seen discussed in a written judgment. 

The conviction o£ Thomas Smith, a private soldier, at tho sessions 
held last week at the Central Criminal Court, for the murder of 
his captain, suggests some observations on crimii il jurisdiction. 
The crime was not committed within the radius of the Central 
Criminal Court, but in the county of Southampton. It is generally 
supposed that the prisoner was brought for trial at this court by 
virtue of the 19 Vict. c. 16, commonly called " Palmer's Act." 
This, however, is not so. The entire legal proceedings were by 
application of an Act of Parliament passed in 1862 (the 25 & 26 
Vict. c. 65.) It is for the express purpose of accelerating justice 
in cases of murder and manslaughicr, and does not apply to any 
other crime. Moreover, it is necessary that both the accused and. 
the deceased should be persons subject to the Mutiny Act. The 
earlier statute (19 Vict. c. 16) applies to all persons and to evei-y 
felony and misdemeanor, and it may therefore appear at first sight 
that the later statute is not required. But on closer investigation 
it will be seen that the earlier statute requires the bill of indict- 
ment to have been found by the grand jiu-y, in the county where 
the prisoner is committed for trial, before application can be made 
to transfer the trial to the Central Criminal Court ; while on the 
other hand, under the 25 & 26 Vict. c. 65, application can be made 
for the same purpose without a bill of indictment having been, 
found. The benefit is obvious. In the case before us the prisoner 
wcmld have been kept in custody until the winter gaol dehvery 
for Southampton, a period of upwards of four months, before a 
bill of indictment could have been preferred. Application after- 
wards for transmission of the trial to the Central Criminal Court 
would have taken some more time, and the deterring influence of 
prompt but just punishment on the minds of other soldiers would 
have been very materially reduced. In the case of an innocent man, 
the imprisonment and anxious suspense would have been propor- 
tionately abridged. Why should not the statute bo extended to> 
civilians also ? 

•We have received a circular putting forth a project for the consti- 
tution of a court for the adjudicating of questions arising under 
assurance contracts. If the state of things depicted in this circular 
exists, we must blush for the administration of justice. 
"Assurers," wo are told, "have abandoned all hope that claims 
under assurance contracts will be determined according to law and 
justice." "Assurers prefer to condone fraud, rather than incur the 
odium, prejudice, and serious costs of a judicial decision, the result 
of which is sometimes determined by the Judge having a false con- 
ception of the nature of the original contract." " Under marine poli- 
cies of assurance, passengers and sailors areexposed to peril. Under- 
writers can hardly be induced to resist payment of a poUcy.although. 
it is of serious consequence that damage to a ship should not by 
assurance be an improper source of profit to the owner. Fire insur- 
ance companies seldom dare to refuse to pay a policy, however gross 
may be the facts, for fear that they incur the unrighteous censure 
of Judge, and consequently of jury and public, though the inrea- 

Digitized by 


Nov. 7, 1874.] 



tig»tion of a Ruppicioos fire, before payment of a claim, may be of 
interest to every householder. Life assnreance companies rarely 
contest a fraudulent claim, though when one member obtains a 
policy improperly the directors are bound as trustees to see 
jaitice done by the other members of the society." We say 
unhesitatingly that this is an exaggeration. Undoubtedly insur- 
ance companies and other insurers, by receiving premiums have a 
preliminary difficulty to get over in resisting claims. Jurors are 
apt to look for very good grounds to justify a refusal to pay the 
assured. But when we have modified the statement of the 
grievance, its size is by no means insignificant. There does not, 
however, appear to be any reason why a separate court should try 
assurance contracts any more than cotton contracts. No such 
special knowledge is required as is found to be necessary to the 
proper trial of patent and admiralty causes. Patent law cer- 
tainly has a prior claim to have a court of its own, and until this 
is established we should not advocate the constitution of a court 
for the trial of assurance contracts. 

For once — once only, we regret to say, in several years — ^we find 
ourselves in perfect agreement with Mr. Commissioner Kebk. 
Sitting as a criminal Judge, he has given expression to sentiments 
concerning the practices of those engaged professionally in his 
court which are so obviously sound, and so loudly called for, that 
we lose no time in recording our satisfaction and our complete 
sympathy with him in his indignation. 

" Devilling " at the Bar has long been a recognised system. It 
has been the means whereby many unknown men have acquired 
eminence. Such is the constitution of the legal Profession, that 
introduction to business is not to be procured by the Bar in the 
same way that it is obtained in other businesses and professions. 
By practical intercourse with solicitors, employment is most legi- 
timately secured by capable men; this intercourse cannot t&e 
place unless both parties are engaged in tho same work. Hence 
it is that the junior Bar has always been ready and indeed anxious 
to do gratuitously the work of those who have acquired a 
practice too extensive to allow them to devote to every case 
their individual attention. The latter, naturally enough, are 
nelad to take advantage of the willing labours of tho briefless, and 
the result is the state of things which has excited the just and 
Ti^iorous condemnation of Mr. Commissioner Kerr — a state of 
thin^ by which the public largely suffers, and which is calculated 
to bring discredit upon the Bar of England. 

The particular case upon which the learned Commisrioner 
founded his observations possessed more than one objectionable 
feature. Not only was the counsel in request not in court, but it 
appeared that he had been instructed on both sides. Whether he had 
landed over both his briefs was not stated, but the prisoner had paid 
his fee, and then, to his dismay, heard that his own counsel was to 
be opposed to him as leader of the prosecution. Until some explana- 
tion of this extraordinary position of matters is given, we desire 
to make no reflection upon anyone, but we would mildly suggest 
that it is tho business of a barrister's clerk to see that his em- 
ployer does not take iuRtmctions from both sides — to say nothing 
of the fees : and if this particular barrister was not instructed for 
the prosecution until after he had taken the prisoner's fee, and then 
ele(^«d to prosecute, we should desire some time to consider the 
terms in which we should express our sense of his conduct. If 
he_ was instructed by the prosecution before receiving the 
prisoner's fee, the fee should never have been taken. In whatever 
aspect the position is viewed it discloses a laxity of practice which 
counsel's convenience would probably suggest is to be laid at tiie 
door of the clerk. We conceive, however, that explicit directions 
onoe given would render such laxity impossible, and it is due to 
the Bar that the practice should be promptly put down. 

We are now, however, dealing more particularly with the 
system of " devilling," and we would seriously recommend the 
Junior Bar to consider whether it is expedient that it should 
oontinne to flourish as it now does at the Common law Bar and 
the Criminal Bar. We do not refer to the Equity Bar because 
cxmnsel generally confine themselves to a particular ooiirt, and 
devilling is not carried on, except in chambers, to anything like 
the _ same extent as elsewhere. Moreover among equity 
bairisters gratuitous devilling is very rare, and when a barrister 
divides bis fees with his " devil," he is more likely to see that the 
"devil" in< question has brains, whereas, under other circum- 
stances, the labour being a gift, capacity is not to be too rigidly 
scrutinised. And what is the consequence P The clerk of a 
barrister in large practice in the Temple will frequently, on his 
own motion, apply to any other barrister who may be known to 
hnn, to hold briefs sent to his employer. The consent of the 
dient is very rarely obtained, and at the last moment it is found 
tliat_ the counsel originally selected is not to be had, and that a 
barrister possibly wholly unknown to the parties, and of the 
smallest capacity and learning, is entrusted with interests of, 
perhaps, vital importance to the suitor. 

Now there are two aspects in which this system and practice 
may be viewed — the first and most important is the public aspect ; 
the second, and comparatively unimportant, is the professional 

aspect. The public have a distinct and absolute right to the 
services of a professional man who consents to act for them, and 
in pursuance of the arrangement receives payment or trusts the 
solicitor to the extent of the fee marked on the brief. Whether 
this fee be regarded as the consideration of a contract of hiring, 
or as an honorarium, is of no importance whatever ; but if it were 
material, it is surely impossible to say that in honour and good 
fiaith, and, to use the words of a barrister who replied to Mr. 
Commissioner Kerr, in common honesty, work ought -to be done 
by him who is engaged and undertakes to do it. We venture to 
predict that a system which recognizes constant breach of faith 
Dy barristers cannot last. If a solicitor instructed, for example, 
in a bankruptcy case, or in the County Court, were not to attend, 
and to leave the interests entrusted to him in the hands of a tyro 
through whom the business miscarried, that solicitor would pay 
for his negligence in damages. The reason why the Bar has not been 
made subject to the same penalty is that it has been looked up to 
hitherto as the embodiment of all that is high, noble, and honour- 
able in English professional life. If these characteristics fall 
sway and the career is made one simply of a race for wealth, then 
the public must look to its own interests. The system which Mr. 
Commissioner Kerr justly brands as detestable, the system by 
which a few men in the criminal courts monopolize the business, 
must be put down. That learned Judge has declared his intention 
of postponing every case in which the counsel actually instructed 
is not in court to conduct it. This course must have a wholesome- 
effect ; and we thus come to the second aspect of the question — 
the professional aspect. 

It is hardly credible that in court business junior barristers 
should lend themselves to support a monopoly which is a sure 
barrier to their own legitimate progress. It becomes the more- 
astounding when the result proves that the public will if possible 
employ toe monopolists notwithstanding repeated disappoint- 
ments. Without the assistance of tho briefless barristers the 
monopoly would como to an end, and the briefless would become- 
practising barristers. These gentlemen prefer, however, to work 
for nothing on the bare speculation that they may captivate the 
attorney or the public, and they persist in it in spite of the 
evidences of all their senses that it is to a large extent if not 
entirely vain. So long as the briefless barrister consents to 
" devil," so long will tho monopoly flourish to the detriment of the 
public and the Bar, unless the Judges take cognizance of it 
and not only denounce it, but place difficulties in the path which 
shall render its continuance practically impossible. 

We have received a letter from a gentleman who signs his 
name and who gives us in confidence the names of barristers who 
have advised in cases and at the last moment deserted their 
clients. Such statements are always to be regarded with distrust, 
but there is obviously a substratum of truth in what our corre- 
spondent alleges. Such grievances cannot be redressed in each 
particular case, but punishment may fall indirectly on the delin- 
quent, and we trust it will always be inflicted whore possible. 
To publish the letter referred to would be productive of no good 
result. The moral which it conveys has been sufficiently dealt 
■?rith in the foregoing remarks, and we commend our obEcrvations 
and those of Mr. Commissioner Kerr, to the scrions consideration 
of all barristers who value the honour and the integrity of the Bar 
of England. 

It is certainly remarkable that so many questions affecting the 
law of marine insurance should have been decided within a com- 
paratively short period. On the first day of Term two judgments 
were delivered in the Court of Common Pleas which are by no 
means the least important of the series. The warranty of sea- 
worthiness, implied in all but time policies, is a bulwark to the 
underwriter, and a protection to the lives of seamen. A breach 
of this -warranty avoids the policy, and it is therefore important 
to consider what the courts deem sufficient evidence of unseawor- 
thiness. In AnderBon v. Morice, one of the two oases referred 
to, the ship insured, when she had nearly finkhed loading^ 
suddenly went to the bottom -without any apparent reason. Upon 
this it was contended for the defendant insurer that there was no 
evidence of loss by perils of the sea. The jury found in effect that 
the ship was seaworthy, and the court have declined to disturb the 
verdict. Evidence, indeed, was given, that extensive repairs had 
been done to the ship shortly before sbe sailed upon the voyage 
for which Ae was iaaored, and that she had behaved very wdl 
upon the voyage immediately preceding her loss. But the pre- 
sumption arising from the sudden sinking of the vessel was one 
very strong and not easy to rebut, and the Judge who tried the 
case said he should have found a difierent vetdiot. The plaintiff 
probably would cite this case as illustrating the benefit of trial by 
JBry. , , 

The second case to which we have referred iaeCjually interesting, 
X not quite so remarkable, its title being BanielU r. Ha.rri$. The 
qoBBtion there was whether the circumstance that a deck cargo 
could be easily got rid of in a storm was an element for conside- 
ntiou in judging of the seaworthiness of the vessel. This con- 
sideration was directly brought to the attention of the jury by t>- 
leamed Judge in the course of an exhaustive summing up. 

Digitized by 




[Nov. 7, 1874. 

court considered that the direction of the learned Judge was 
correct, but that the proposition conveyed by it to the minds of 
the jury was fallacious. We are writing upon the Times abridged 
report of what was probably a carefully prepared written judg- 
ment, and we cannot, therefore, criticise the terms of it. The im- 
pression produced upon the minds of the jury was, we imagine, that 
a ship could not be unseaworthy by reason of carrying a heavy 
deck cargo, supposing that deck cargo could be broached with 
facility and got rid of. This certainly could not be sanctioned as 
a principle of law. If the ship as loaded was unseaworthy at the 
time the policy attached the underwriters were discharged. It 
is possible to imagine terms being inserted in a policy which 
might let in the application of the modified proposition sought to 
be applied in this case ; but it is obviously impossible to consider 
as sound a direction to the jury in the form adopted by the learned 
judge who tried the case. 

It would be extremely dangerous to fritter away this important 
warranty, or to relax the strictness with which it has been 
maintained. Whether it has been complied with or broken is 
always, of course, a question of fact, frequently of much difficulty, 
and the deliberations of juries ought not to bo confused by the 
introduction of novel propositions engrafted on the ancient 
principle of law. 

(Continued from page 446.) 
The Peesonal Liability of Directors. 
All questions connected with the subject of giving and taking 
securities are of much interest to the raercautile world. Ques- 
tions of this nature arise every day. They are not of interest 
solely to one particular kind of corporation ; they do not concern 
merely a small section of the large body of joint stock companies ; 
but they are of more or less importance to all. It is on this account 
that we think it worth while to consider some of the effects in 
cases where a corporation acts ultra vires by taking a security. 
A case to the point was heard by the Privy Council in 1871 : 
Sayes, iS'f. (apps.), v. South Australian Banking Company (resps.) 
(L. Hep. 3 P. C. 548). This was an appeal from the Supreme 
Court of South Australia. The only facts we need state are the 
following : The charter of the banking company contained a clause 
declaring it unlawful for the company to lend money on the 
security of merchandise. In violation of this clause the bank 
advanced money and took as security a preferential lien on the 
wool of an ensuing clip to be shorn from the sheep of the party in 
whose favour the advances were made. The only other facts to 
remark are that tho person in whose favour the advances were 
made was not actually in possession of the flock ; and, secondly, 
that the South Australian Act, No. 4 of 18-55-6, empowered an 
owner to make a pledge of his next clip's wool without giving 
possession. Judgment was delivered by Lord Justice Mellish. 
The counsel of tho appellants could discover no authority to sup- 
port the proposition that any violation of the clause in the charter 
would prevent the property in goods passing to the person to whom 
an instrument otherwise valid professed to pass it, " and," con- 
tinued his Lordship, " their Lordships are of opinion that, whatever 
other effect the violation of such a condition may have, it has not 
the effect of preventing the property in the goods passing, or of 
preventing an action of trover being maintained if there is a 
wrongful conversion." 

It may be asked what is the present state of the law respecting 
the personal liability of directors who have exceeded their powers 
in giving securities. A good case under this head is that of 
Chambers v. 'The Manchester and Milford Railway Company (5 
B. & S. 588). This company was empowered by their special Act 
to raise a capital of £55.!),000, and to raise a further sum of 
£185,000 by mortgage, after the whole of the capital had been 
subscribed for, and one half paid up. The present action was 
brought by Chambers upon a bond. From the evidence given it 
may be gathered that all the capital was not subscribed for, when 
the company borrowed £10,000 in order to pay some debts, and 
amongst others one due to Chambers for travelling expenses and 
loss of time. This sum was obtained by the directors on the 
security of the joint and several promissory note of Chambers, 
the chairman of the company, and of one of the directors. The 
latter was compelled to pay tho note, and having brought an 
action against Chambers, it was resolved by the board of directors 
that the secretary should be ordered to seal Lloyd's bonds to 
indemnify Chambers. Bonds were sealed, and tho company 
acknowledged that they were indebted to Chambers in the sum 
of £1000 for money had and received. Chambers received the 
bonds and assigned them away. The court held that the bonds 
were illegal, and that the plaintiff could not consequently recover. 
• " The principle of law," said Mr. Justice Blackburn, " was accu- 
rately stated by Lord Wensleydale in his judgment in The South 
Yorkshire Railway and River Dun Company v. The Oreat Northern 
Railway Company (19 Ex. 55), my opinion in the present case is 
based upon this, that the instruments, on which the action is 
brought, are instruments which by necessary inference tho Legisla- 
ture intended should not be made, and that this constitutes a good 

defence at law." His Lordship advised a recourse to a court of 

Mr. Justice Crompton observed that where an Act of Parlia- 
ment prohibits borrowing, there would hardly be an equity in the 
lender to recover money lent; and quoted with approbation a 
dictum of Baron Parke m the case referred to above by Mr. Jus- 
tice Blackburn : " Where a corporation is created by Act of Par- 
liament for particular purposes, with special powers, then indeed 
another question arises, their deed, though under their corporate 
seal, and that regularly affixed, does not bind them, if it appear 
by the express provisions of the statute creating the corporation, 
or by necessary or reasonable inference from its enactments, that 
tho deed was ultra vires — that is, that the Legislature meant that 
such a deed should not be made." In this case it was held that 
there had been a violation of the Companies Clauses Consolida- 
tion Act 1845, as well as of the Special Act. 

The personal liability of directors for concealment in a pro- 
spectus is well illustrated by the case of Peek v. Gumey (25 L. T. 
Rep. N. S. 446 ; L. Rep. 13 Eq. 74). The questions raised were 
whether Peek was entitled to have his name removed from the 
list of shareholders in the firm of Overend, Gumey, and Co. 
(Limited) ; and, secondly, whether the late directors were not 
liable to make good to the plaintiff, or indemnify him against 
the losses which he had sustained and might sustain in conse- 
quence of his having become a member of the company. What- 
ever had been the misconduct of the directors, the plaintiff could 
not by reason of the lapse of time repudiate the contract: {Oakes 
V. Turquand.) And the only question, said Lord Romilly, was 
whether the personal liability of the directors depends on tho 
same, or on similar principles, as regards the time when relief 
should be sought, as it does when the cancellation of the con- 
tract is sought. Whilst on the one hand his Lordship did 
not wish to lay down a hard and fast line, that the liquida- 
tion of the company bars this relief as it does the repudia- 
tion of shares, and having observed " there is no conduct more 
rigidly reprobated in equity, than the system of playing fast and 
loose ; that is, the intention of adopting a company if successful, 
and of repudiating it if it falls, he refused to relieve the plain- 
tiff owing to the lapse of time since the allotment of his shares, 
and to the fact that the company had been wound-up. Perhaps 
we cannot do better than present our readers with what Lord 
Chelmsford and Vice Chancellor Wood (16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 500; 
and 17 L. T. Rep. N. S. 527) consider to be an excellent summary 
of the law which regulates the conduct of directors towards their 
shareholders. The summary was given by Vice-Chancellor 
Kindersley in the Neiv Brunswick and Canada Railway Companij. 
V. Muggeridge (1 Dr. & Sm. 381 ; 3 L. T. Rep. N. S. 656) : "Those 
who issue a prospectus holding out to the public the great 
advantages which will accrue to persons who will take shares ia 
the proposed undertaking, and inviting them to take shares on 
the faith of the reports therein contained, are bound to state 
everything with strict and scrupulous accuracy, and not only to 
abstain from stating as facts that which is not so, but to omit no 
one fact within their knowledge the existence of which might in 
any degree affect the nature or extent or quality of tho privi- 
leges which the prospectus holds out as inducements to take 
shares." Vice-Chancellor Wood called the enunciation of this 
rule by Sir Richard Kindersley, a golden legacy. In tho present 
case, however, the introduction of new circumstances demanded 
another ratio decidendi. 

A case decided by the Court of Common Pleas in 1871 is of 
much interest to shareholders who have the means of knowing 
that the directors have acted beyond their authority. This was 
the case of The Phosphate of Lime Company {Limited) v. Oreen 
and another (25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 636). The above company was 
formed for the purpose of working some mines. The defendants, 
who were the promoters of the company, bought a large number 
of shares, for which they could not pay. Accordingly the directors 
advanced a sum of money to the defendants, to enable them to pay 
up their subscriptions. The company now sought to recover back 
the money lent. The articles of agreement forbad tho purchase 
of its own shares, but permitted the company to mortgage, let, or 
sell any of the property. At the general meeting, after the above 
transaction with the defendants, the directors' report was read and 
circulated amongst the shareholders. " If," said Mr. Justice Willes, 
" we look to the fact that the transaction was not concealed, and 
that the circular of the directors conveyed sufficient information, 
together with the account which was presented to the shareholders 
at the general meeting, which showed the entry that tho shares 
were forfeited, and also that there is no evidence that a single 
shareholder was ignorant, it forces itself upon my mind that there 
was evidence of the adoption of the directors' act. ... In Spack- 
man's cote (L. Rep. 3 H. of L. Cas. 171) Lord St. Leonards says, 
and I agree with him, " that it is right that absent shareholders 
should not bo bound by an act of the directors ultra vires to which 
they have not consented ; but yet although an act be ultra vires, if 
the absent shareholders acquiesce they will be bound." 

In our next number we purpose touching upon the law affecting 
contributories, which will complete the series of articles originally 
proposed as subjects the treatment of which would illustrate the 
law of joint stock companies. 

digitized by 


Nov. 7, 1874.1 


Thb cose of Oraeroft v. Smith, recently heard before Judge Miller 
in the Dablin Court of Bankruptcy, raised many important 
qnestions as to time bargains. The plaintifE, a London stock- 
broker, sought to have the defendant, a customer of his at Belfast, 
adjudicated bankrupt under the Bankruptcy (Ireluid) Amendment 
Act 1872 (35 & 36 Vict. c. 58 s. 21, subs. 6) upon the defendant 
fiwling to pay a sum of £30,000, being the amount of " differences" 
upon stock jobbing transactions between the parties during the 
short space of three weeks. The rules of the Stock Exchange 
had been steadily followed, but the default of the defendant hM. 
resulted in the suspension of the plaintiff upon the London Stock 
Exchange. The defendant rsisod the defence that the contract 
■was a wagering one within 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109, s. 18, and therefore 
"null and void." The jury found specially for the plaintiff 
(amongst other things) that the contracts did not come within the 
statute — a point which appears to us to be rather one of law — 
and a verdict passed for the petitioner. Commenting upon the 
above facts, the Times rightly remarked (1) That the contracts as 
between the plaintiff and defendant was not a wagering one, but 
(2) that it would be otherwise as between two principals, inasmuch 
as a "transaction on the Stock Exchange where one man affects 
to sell and another man affects to buy stock for a distant day, and 
where each to the knowledge of the other has no intention that 
any stock shall be transfenid on the day in question, the end of 
both being to pay and receive the difference in price which may 
then have arisen, comes within the statute. ... A debt so 
arising," proceeds the leading journal, " is a mere debt of honour, 
like a debt on Newmarket Heath." 

As to the first point, it has been frequently held in actions by 
brokers for commission that the fiict that the transactions in 
respect of which the commission was earned were wagering con- 
tracts within 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109, was no defence (see Jessop v. 
LutiBvche, 24 L. J. 65, Ex; Eosewame v. Billing, 33 L. J. 55, OP. ; 
9 L. T.Rep. N. S. 441.) In the latter case Erie, C.J. put the law very 
dearly thus : " No one can sue on a gaming contract, and the 
plaintiff would not have been liable in an action brought against 
nim by the parties with whom he had made the contract, and to 
whom he had lost. But when he paid, he was acting as the 
defendant's agent, and where a person who has lost a wager 
requests another person to pay it for him, and that person does 
pay it, an action lies . . ." He^addedjthat, in his opinion, this 
would be so, if the request were made before the loss actually 
happened, but doubted whether if after the loss the principal 
gave notice to the broker not to pay, the broker, althougn bound 
by the rules of the market to pay the amount himself, could 
recover it, when paid, from the principal. This last point, however 
(a very serious one), does not appear to have been subsequently 
nused. No mention, at any rate, can be found of it in the 
lecent case of Lacey t. Hill, 42 L. J. 656, Oh. ; 29 L. T. Bep. N. S. 

281 (a suit for the administration of Sir Bobert Hervey's estate), 
in which the court recognised as reasonable, the Stock Exchange 
role that when the principal dies, the broker mav make " a con- 
tract at once to counteract the other contract which he has made," 
so as not to run the risk of any further sale in the market. The 
broker, therefore, may enter mto time bargains, on behalf of a 
principal, without any fear of losing his commission, or of being 
unable to recover what he may have paid for " differences." 

As to the second point, there appears to be no doubt whatever 
that " time bargains " are wagenng contracts : (See Barry v. 
Oroekey, 2 J. & H. 1.) Indeed, until 1860, such bargains were not 
only null and void, but illegal by virtue of the curious Act " to 
prevent the infamous practice of stock-jobbing " (7 Geo. 2, c. 8, 
made perpetual by 10 Geo. 2 c. 8, and repealed by 23 & 24 Vict. c. 
28). By this Act, commonly called Sir John Barnard's Act, after 
reciting that great inconveniences have arisen by the wicked, 
pernicious, and destructive practice of stock-jobbing, whereby 
many . . . are diverted from exercising their lawful trades, to the 
utter ruin of themselves and families, to the great discouragement 
of industry, and to the manifest detriment of trade and com- 
merce," it was enacted, among other things, that no money 
should be paid to compound mfferenoes relating to stock not 
actually delivered ; that stock sold and not paid for at the day 
fixed might be sold to other persons ; that persons buying or 
selling stock of which they are not possessed should be punished 
with £500 penalties, the brokers to be fined £100, and the con- 
tracts to be void. 

This Act, which is useful for the legal definition of a " time 
bargain," was repealed as imposing " unnecessary restrictions 
on the making of contracts for the sale and transfer of stocks : " 
(See as to the construction of it Morris v. Longdale, 2 Bos. & 
Poll. 239 ; Greenland v. Ih/er, 2 Man. & B. 422 ; Ex parte Bulmer, 
13 Ves. 313, and especially Oannan v. Bryee, 3 B. & Aid. 179.) 
It utterly failed to effect its object, and it was well said to be 
" alike anomalous as notorious that a numerous and highly 
respectable body of men earn their livelihood by the daily and 
hourly violation of the clauses of the statute :" (Keyser's ikw of 
the Stock Exchange 1850, p. 152.) 

The legal position, then, of the simply speculative stock jobbing 
transactions is this: They are no longer illegal, as they were 
before the repeal of Barnard's Act in 1860 by 23 & 24 Viot. c. 
28, but they are, beyond doubt, wagering contracts, and as such 
null and void — regarded by the law in somewhat the same light as 
contracts barred by the Statutes of Limitation. 

In conclusion, we cannot agree with the suggestion of the Times, 
that the old legislation should be revived, though we think it 
worthy of consideration whether the duty upon contract notes for 
the sale of stock (fixed at one penny by an Act, 23 & 24 Vict. c. Ill, 
passed in the same year as tnat repealing Barnard's Act) might 
not be largely increased. 


Wb understand it is piopoeed that the Tjori Mayor 
eleot for the oity of London— the Sight Honour- 
able David Henry Stone — who, as we nave already 
snnoonoed, was for many years in aotiTe ptao- 
tioe in the oi^ aa a solicitor, ehonld be entertained 
at a banquet in London on a grand eoale to be 
given by soUoiton. It ii, we beliove, further 
■ngeested that representatiTes ihonld be preeent 
on uie ocoaeion from the larger provinoial towns. 
It the idea of its desinbility gains groond, the 
matter shonld be taken np oy the ohief repre- 
Motative body of the Profeenon. 

Apbopos of the ijoeetion, recently before the 
jnatiaes of Kent sitting in quarter lessioni, of 
g|ivin^ Bolioitors a right of aadienoe before the 
uoenaing oommittees of the oonnty, a London 
correspondent regrets that we did not publish the 
observations of the magistrate who brought the 
queetion before the oout, that we did not give 
the names of the magistrates oonstitnting the 
conit, and that we have offered no oomment on 
the questiion of exiMnees necessarily incurred by 
local practitioners in preparing and presenting 
their case to the court. Owing to want of si>aoe 
much matter was last week unavoidably excluded 
from our colnmns, indnding a letter from Mr. 
Oibson, which we now pnbUan, and soma part of 
our report was necessarily abridged. Amongst the 
masistratee present were several peers of the 
realm and other members of the ariatooraoy, but 
to publish all the names ia nnneoeasary. Mr. 

Beattis, who brought the matter before the court, 
observed as follows : " The oonrt wunld recollect 
that upon the formation of the existiog rules, he 
had suggested the proprieiy of allowing soUcitors 
to appear before the Ucenting oonmuttee. The 
court at that time did not think proper to attend 
to that suggestion. Since then the matter had 
been ooiisi£rably discussed, and brought before 
ike attention of the pnblic, and he had now to 
ask the oonrt to hear soUoitors before the Ucen- 
aing oommittees. He did not make the motion 
for the purpose of excluding barristers, but as in 
licensing matters questions of fact were brought 
before the court, upon which it was desirable 
that the tallest information shonld be reomvad, he 
thought soUeitors who were acquainted with the 
respective looJities ought to be permitted to 
appear. Having satisfieid th^ licensing justice* 
that it was desirable to have a new licence, it was 
right that they should appear before that court 
in support of their clients' application. The extra 
expense should be avoided of parties being driven, 
after having instnicted a solicitor in the case, to 
have recourse to a barrister who would neces- 
sarily have to come to the question anew^ after it 
had once been fully studied by the solicitor who 
instnota him." Upon the snbjeot of expense 
mooted by our correspondent, we feel there is 
nothmg for us to say, ekoept, perhaps, that it 
should De borne by the Kent Law Socie^, or, at 
all events, not by individuals. Mr. W. Onabam's 
appeal to the jadges in regard to the expnlaion of 
us son from Orajrs.inn was, as to costs, disposed 
of, by the Incorporated Law Society refunding Mr. 
Ghresham the amount of his disbursements only. 

A sinular course might well be adopted in the 
present case. And we are quite sure it has only 
to be represented in the proper quarter to receivo 
the attention which such a matter deserves. 
Mr. Beattie's observations as to barristers 
coming anew to work already fully studied hy 
solicitors, and his conoluiions upon the point, 
must necessarily force other ideas upon tha 
minds of professional men. 

Thx Chairman of the Cheshire Quarter Session* 
(the Right Hon. Lord Egerton) Utely called tha 
attention of the court to the comparison which 
had been drawn between the amount paid for 
official salaries in that county with simUar nay- 
ments in Lancashire. 'The magistrate's clerk 
and other officials in Cheshire were, he said, paid 
by salary, while in the other county they were 

Said by fees, and there was a balance of several 
undred pounds in favour of Cheshire. Whether 
in counties or boroughs the system of payment by 
salary is found to De more satisfactory and eoo- 
nomicaJ. , 

In our last issue we reported the obserratioiis of 
the learned judge of tiw East Kent County Court, 
upon the subject of the want of power on the 
part of Coonty Court judges to order payment ot 
soUoitors' fee* when a claim is under £S, We oon- 
cur entirely with Mr. Bussell's forcibly expressed 
opinion on this very important subject. The 
jurisdiction of the County Court has been much 
extended, and will inevitably be so to a yet greater 
extent. Questions involving large and import -- 

Digitized by 



[Nov. 7, 1874. 

interests are often dixposed of by decisions in 
these courts upon cUims under jf5. The Incor- 
porated Law Society, through the council of the 
Bociety, should move in this matter, which ia of 
great concern to country solicitors. There is, we 
know, every desire on the part of the council, to 
diacharfje the duties which its members consider 
properly devolve upon them, but we venture to 
think that the council rely too much upon other 
people putting them in motion on sneh questions. 
Tho fact that a County Court judge has expressed 
so strong an opinion on the point is of itself suffi- 
cient to re<iuire not only a consideration of tho 
subject by the council, but that action should 
fallow without loss of time. 

A BBCENT issue of the Sussex Express, Surrey 
Standnrd, Weald of Ktnt Mail, Hants niuJ 
County Advertiser, contained the following 
notice : — " Prufessional and trade notices. — Tho 
publication of this stereotype list is an effort to 
establish relations of mutual advantage between 
the proprietor and his subscribers. It includes 
the principal inhabitants of vSuasex, Surrey, and 
Kent, engaged in trade and commerce, and the 
professi«ns, who will in future become known, 
and their names familiarised by the most in- 
fluential and numerous circnlationa extant in the 
South of England. This is of itecif a boon of no 
inconsiderable importance, and establishes a 
system of mutual benefit between the proprietor 
and subscriber, giving to the latter means of 
advertisiiiff free of cost. The object is simply 
this : the SKsseJ" Express, Surrey Standard, and 
Kent Mail possesses the largest circulation of 
any other prnviu'-ial newspaper in the South of 
England. Can this circulation without cost be 
available to improve the commercial connections 
of the subscribers ? We answer in the affirma- 
tive, and this plan presents the means. Become 
subscribers, and your trade advertising is costless. 
Those who are not subscribers may be adver- 
tised in this list at 5s. Gd. per quarter. Alter- 
ations may be made quarterly. Perhaps we 
ought to state that the great majority of the 
subscribers of this journal are the landed pro- 
prietors, tho clergy, the yeomen, and the tenant 
farmers of the district, whose names, of course, 
are not included in this list." Following this are 
the names of professional men and tradesmen, 
arranged under the name of the town in which 
their busino-^s is carried on. We are snrprieed to 
find amongst them the names of solicitors, and in 
the case of one large town the name of a member 
of the other branch, thus described, "(name), 
barrister and clerk of the peace." Beyond say- 
ing that we are surprised we make no comment. 
We have before called attention to the matter. 
There is, no doubt, some sufficient explanation, 
and it should be forthcoming. 

We hope shortly to publish a table showing the 
number of solicitors in England and Wales who 
do not take out certificates, but act. as clerks 
to practising solicitors, or are otherwise em- 
ployed. There are, we believe, over two thou- 
sand thus engaged, or, at all events, who do 
not practice on th ir own account, although 
on the rolls. As regards barristers-at-law, an 
immense proportion of them are without any 
pretence to practising their profession, and their 
object in being called, except that formerly it 
could be accomplished on payment of fees, and 
without a legal examination, and gave them a 
certain social standing, it is difficult to understand. 
Even at the present day men are constantly 
entering the profession whose prospect of or- 
dinary sncoesa even, are painfully remote. A 
candidate for the one branch is apt to think 
that as soon as called solicitors will flock in 
numbers to his chamber, and for the other that 
he will be driven to death by clients eager for 

We are asked to call attention to the system 
which obtains in the offices of the Bankruptcy 
Court in BaainghiiU- street, in regard to the issue 
of office copies of proceedings. A correspondent 
informs ns that if such a copy ia required it must 
be searched for in one office and bespoken in 
another, and that the clerk in the latter ofiioe 
estimates the number of folios of the document 
for the puriiose of depositing so much in stamps 
on account, without seeing the document, copy of 
which is required, tho applicant of conrse stating 
his opinion as to its length. " In a recent case," 
Bays our correspondent, " I bespoke an office copy 
appointment of assignees, and was required to de- 
posit 6d., for which amount a stamp was taken in 
and affixed to the form of request. On receiving 
the office copy two diys later, it was indorsed 
' Fos.2; 4d.,' and the balance was not returned; and 
why," asks our correspondent, " should sixpence 
be paid when fonrpence only is due." The amount 
in difference is not the point, though it is pre- 
BDmed that the system being in fault the difii- 
■cnlty might arise in a ease where a larger sum is 
paid, \Ve quite agree with our correspondent 

that the system in question is defective, though 
we presume if the snm charged in excess had been 
asked for it would have been returned. It is 
worthy of observation that only twopence a folio 
for copy is charged in the Bankruptcy Court, 
while in tho common law offices it ia fourpence, 
and in the Probate and Divorce Court offices 
sixpence. We think the latter excessive ; and, 
inort'over. there ought to bo a greater uniformity 
in these charges. 

The secretary of the Justices Clerks' Society has 
we understand, prepared a somewhat elaborate 
statement upon the subject of the communica- 
tion which has been addressed by the Secre- 
tary of State for the Home Department to nume- 
rous benches of magistrates throughout the 
country. It contains many valuable practical 
suggestions, and thus this useful society, in 
addition to promoting tlio interests of its 
members, is afforded a special opportunity of 
assisting in developing a more complete and 
perfect system of jurisdiction in the inferior 
criminal tribunals of the country. We are de- 
cidedly of opinion that the power of magis- 
trates sitting in petty session may be safely ex- 
tended in many directions, much to the advan- 
tage of the community at largo. As in criminal 
trials before the higher tribunals it is not un- 
usual to remove ca«es to other courts, where it is 
likely a prisoner or defendant may suffer in oon- 
sequonoe of passion or prejudice against him or 
her, so where an accused person can suggest a 
reasonable cause for magistrates being influenced 
by interests, even remote, of their own— such, for 
instance, as in a case of alleged wilful damage to 
property belonging to a company of which a 
magistrate present is a director or shareholder — 
then such accused person should have a right to 
have the charge remitted for hearing to a neigh- 
bouring Bench. 

A COUNTRY solicitor writes inquiring whether we 
can furnish him with a precedent for the appoint- 
ment of <3eputy town clerk. Whether there are 
any such oflicea at present existing, and, if so, by 
whom filled and under what circumstances such 
appointments, if any, were made ? There are, wo 
believe, several instances in which such an ap- 
pointment has been made. We cannot, however, 
recall to mind the name of any particular borough 
in whiirh such an appointment is held. Sect. 58 
of 5 &G Will. 4, 0. 7G (The Municipal Corporations 
Act), authorising municipal authorities to appoint 
such other officers as they may think vecessary, is 
an authority for the creation of suoh an office. 
Sect, n of 21 & 22 Vict. o. 73, makes nse of the 
expression " deputy town clerk," in dealing with 
the division of borough quarter sessions into two 
courts. The fact that additional work and respon- 
sibility is thrown on the shoulders of town clerks 
by many recent statutory provisions, especially 
that providing, that in case of a vacancy in the 
office of clerk to an nrban sanitary authority, 
which is constituted of a municipal authority, 
then the town clerk shall, in addition, discharge 
the duties appertaining to such vacant office, 
is in itself evidence of the utility of the above 
provision. We believe in connection with this 
some difficulty has arisen in regard to the ques- 
tion of salary, but it ia not our purpose to con- 
sider this point. ^^^^^ 

The first lecture on Common Law was delivered 
to the students at the Law Institution, Chancery- 
lane, on Thursday last. A large number of 
articled clerks were present, and several mem- 
bers of the council supported^the lecturer by 
their presence. The arrangements for next week 
are as follows : Monday, class (Common Law), 
4 30 to 6 o'clock ; Tuesday, ditto ; Wednesday, 
ditto ; Thursday, lecture (Couveyanoing), 6 
to 7. As stated in the advertisement, which 
appeared in our last issue, members of the Incor- 
porated Law Sooiety may attend the lectures 
without subscribing. To prevent interruption, 
subscribers are not admitted to the hall after a 
lecture has oommenoed. 

A FAIR specimen of the many unnecessary objec- 
tions taken from time to time by clerks in the 
law offices, in connection with routine work, 
and which objections often occasion much unne- 
cessary delay and trouble to solicitors and their 
clerks, is fnrnished by a correspondent, who 
observes that having occasion to make a copy 
of a submission to arbitration a rule of court — the 
original submission having been lost — the neces- 
sary order for the purpose was obtained. It ran 
thus as drawn up by a judge's clerk, "And in default 
thereof" (that is as to producing original), "a copy 
of the said agreement shall be made a rule of this 
court." A clerk at the Knle Office took the objec- 
tion that in order to complete the order the fol- 
lowing words should be added, "and that the 
Master grant the rule accordingly." We confess 
this is not an objection of a serious nature, and 
we ore quite aware that the time of Eolicitors and 

their clerks is often thrown away in surmounting 
difficulties which, in the interests of the publio 
service, ought not to be raised by clerks in the 
law offices. Our correspondent, a solicitor, ob- 
serves incidentally, " that he cannot understand 
the reason for requiring the signature of counsel 
to a motion paper before a submission, as in the 
above case, can be made a rule of court." He 
suggests that it is an unnecessary expense to 

As our readers are aware the Coronership of Mid- 
dlesex is vacant by the death of Dr. Lanko^ter. The 
Obseri-er stated the probability that Mr. C. E. 
Lewis, MP. for Londonderry, practising as a 
solicitor in the City of London, would again 
stand for this office. Mr. Lewis, writes to the 
Times that he does not intend becoming a. 
candidate. Ho says, " Much as I should like 
to see the office filled by a trained lawyer, I 
have no intention of seeking the office myself, and, 
lest I should possibly keep others out of the field. 
I desire to make this known at once." We 
thoroughly agree with Mr. Lewis that an experi- 
enced and practical lawyer is the best fitted for 
such a post, and we hope to see a solicitor eleoted. 
Mr Bonlton is the legal candidate. 

An excellent system obtains in t4ie Probate and 
Divorce Court, by which the convenience of jury- 
men is considered to the utmost. With a view to 
this no jury causes set down for hearing in this 
court will bo taken before the 25th inst. This is, 
moreover, a great convenience to suitors and their 
solicitors. In the meantime, undefended causes- 
belore the court itself are first taken, followed by 
the hearing of defended causes before the ooozi 
itself in each case without juries. 

A SOMEWTIAT amusing incident occurred on the 
first day of the present Term in tho Court of 
Queen's Bench : 

Grantliam moved that an attoraev mii?ht be called 
upon to answer the matters in au atlidavit as to alleged 
misconduct; but 

The otfioera of the court pointed oat that by an Act 
of last session (just priutedi it is provided that notice 
of such application must be given. 

CocKBUKN, C.J. observed that the learned gentlemaa 
(who ia in Parliament) bod not yet had time to make 
himself master of the Acts of last seesion. 

Grantham confessed that he had not. 

Blackburn, J. observed that he was not himBalf 
aware of the Act. 

The Act referred to is 37 & 38 Viet. c. 68, the 
Attorneys and Solicitors Act, the 7th section of 
whioh provides that notice in writing (in sach. 
cases as the above) shall bo given to the registrar 
of attorneys and solicitors fourteen clear days 
before making such application. 

The annexed circular published in tho Irish Law 
Times, was sent to an Irish solicitor by a corre- 
spondent in London, requesting to know whether 
on tho other side of the channel it is considered 
professional : 

Dublin Chambers, ^^^^— - 
I beg leave to inclose my card aud tostate that I have 
ma<le arraugements for transuctiog upon an erjual divi- 
bIou of profits such legal bueiness iu Ireland as may be 
intrusted to me by members of th') legal profession in 
England. Having curried on business in my present 
olfices as above for upwards of tweuty years, aud enjoyed 
a considerable practice iu Ireland during that period. 
and being personally well kuonu to many of the jndges 
ou the Irish Bench and the most eminent members of 
the Irish Bit, I need scarcely say that I can f uruiith un- 
exceptionable references as to my experience and 
capacity. — I remain, yours very faithfully, 

N.B. — First-class English references furnished when 
required. Business transacted in any part of Ireland at 
the same scale of charges, and all moneys received xe- 
mitted same day. 

We reproduce an advertisement which appeaiB 
weekly in the Stratford Times : — 

NOTICE TO CLIENTS.— Mr. , Solicitor.. 
Advocate at Shorediccb aud Bow County Courts, 
and Stratford and Ilford Police Courts (bore followv 
address), will attend from 7 till Friday evenings a 
Mr. Brayshaw's there anoiber address). 

Here is another attempt to deceive tho pnblic 
Wo will supply all information to any society 
wliich can see its way to a prosecution : 

LEGAL ASSISTANCE.— Messrs. , Legal 
Agents and Aucauntants, are prepared to carry 
out and conduct liquidntiouB and arrangements wita 
creditors upon reajK)iiable terms, without publicity, 
bankruptcy, or suspension of business. Also all actions 
aud executions, whether in the Superior or Coon^ 
Courti, immediately stayed by injunction. Chancery, 
divorce, probate suits, wills proved, aud common law 
actions conducted with dispatoh, and County Courts 
attended. Wills, leases, assignments and agreements 
prepared. Honey advanced on mortgage, reversions, 
bills of sale, &c., and debts collected at o per cent, in- 
terest, — Apply to (same of firm and addreasj. 

In another column will bo found a report of the 
thirty-third half-yearly general meeting of the 
Solicitors' Benevolent Assooiation, whioh waa 

Digitized by 


Nov. 7, 1874.] 


lield recently at Leeda. The report of the board 
■of direotorg app<.'iir8, on the whole, to be eatis- 
faotory, except tl<at the workinfr ezpensoB are as 
heavy aa nsoal, and should be rednoed. 

Marriku Wombn's Pbofebty Act 1870 (33 
•A 34 Vict. o. 91), B. 11 — Eioht of a Mabbieo 

TRACT. — A m.irried woman, carryinB^ on basinees 
separately from her husband as a sole trader, and 
haTuig in that capacity a banking aooonnt, sned 
her bankers for damages for not presenting a bill 

-of exchange deposited with them for that purpose, 
for not giring her notioe of the dishonoor of a bill 

.of excbuige intrneted to them, and for dishononr- 
ing her cbeqaes, they having funds of hers at the 
time to meet them : Held, that she was entitled 

•^o maintain the action, it being a remedy for the 
proteotion and seenrity of her wages, earnings, 
money, and property, within the meaning of the 
11th section of t£e Married Women's Property Act 
1870 : (Summen t. 17m City Bank, 31 L. T. fCep. 
N.8.288. O.P) 

Dissolution Suit — Dicbbr nisi — Shortxn- 
INO of intgbtal beforb decreb absolutb 
—23 & 24 Vict. c. 144, s. 7—29 Vict. c. 32, s. 3. 

—Under special cironmstanoes, and after there 
had been two suits, in both of which the Queen's 
Proctor had intervened, the court shortened the 
interval between the decree nisi and the decree 
absolute from six to three months : (Fitzgerald v. 
KUgerald, 31 L. T. Ecp. N. 8. 270. Div.) 
Bills of Sale Act 1854 (17 A, 18 Vict. o. 36), 

.8. 7 — Formal Possession— Apparent Ownbr- 
SHip. — Where a mortgagee of furniture under an 
-nnreEistered bill of sale puts a man into posses- 
eion of the furniture, but allows it to be nsed by 
the mortgagor, the furniture remadna in the " ap- 
parent possession " of the mortgagor within the 
meaning of the Bills of Sale Act U54, and in the 

.event of the mortgagor's bankruptcy occurring 
while the man is in possession the fnnutnre wiU 
pass to the trustee in the bankruptcy : (Er parte 

■Jay; Re Blenhhom, 31 L. T. Sep. N. S. 260. 
Dissolution Suit — DssBBTiott.— The has* 

'band withdrew from cohabitation, and refused to 
live with his wife unless she wenld write a letter 
exonerating a lady of whom she believed she had 
leaaon to be jealooa. The wife refused to do this, 

.and the oohabitation waa never resomed : Held, 
in a suit for divorce by the wife, that her refusal 
to oomply with the condition imposed by the 
husband on the renewal of oohabitation, waa not 
unreasonable, and that the husband, therefore, 
had been guilty of desertion without reasonable 
eanae : (DaiUu v. DaUae, 31 L. T. Bep. N. S. 271. 
Will UEALnro with Realty only — Dibbc- 


■ell a portion of the estate, and to apply the 
prooeeds to payment of debto and legacies, will 
not give tiie coort jnrisdiotion to grrant probate 
of a will which disposes only of realty : {in the 
goods of BootU, 31 L. T. Bep. N. S. 273. Prob.) 

Practice — Affidavit of Documents — In- 
.SurnciBNCT — Vexatious Delay— Dismissal 
or Bill. — Where a plaintiff, who had been 
ordered to make the usual affidavit of doonments, 
neglected to make a sufficient affidavit, although 
the time for doing so had been frequently ex- 
tended, the court, on his i^>pliaation for a further 
extension of time, ordered that unless a snffioient 
affidavit waa filed by a certain day the bill should 
h« dismissed with oosts as against the defendant 
■eeking the discovery : (TKe Repviilic of hiheria v. 
The Invperial Bank, 31 L. T. Bep. N. S. 262. 

Practice- Appeal— Secubitt fob Costs.— 
—Where an appeal waa presented by a defendant, 
who waa proved to be a man of no property, Mid 
to have no snbatantial interest in the subject- 
aoatter of the suit, the appellant waa ordered to 
S>Te aeonrity for tiie oosts of the appeal : (TAe 
(SorvoTolum, of Haitingt T. IvaU, 31 Ju. T. Bep. 
17.8.262. Chan.) 

Exceptions to Answer— Discovery— Con- 
ditional Limitation — Forfeiture Clause— 
Oblioation of Defendant to disclose Date 
or Deed under wbich bb claims.- Atestator, 
by hia will, devised certain real estates to tmsteea 
in fee upon trust for son for life, with a oonditioii 
that in case his son should charge or encumber 
the property, his estate should be foifeited, and 
the tmst in favonr of the remaindermen should 
at once take effect. The son leased jpart of the 
|iroperty, and the lessee mortgaged hia leaaehold 
mtereat to the trustees of ^ beneflt bnilding 
■ooiety. One of the trustees of the will filed a 
bill, to which the building society were made de- 
fendants, for the administration of the testator's 
eatate, slleging that the sodety claimed under a 
efaarge in their favonr made by the teetator's son 
whioh had created a forfeiture, and by hia inter- 
Bogatoriea he required the society to set out 
faxtioiilaH of all thaii ohaigM oc dainsonthe 

real estates devised by the testator's will. The 
soeiety by thrir answer admitted that they were 
mortgagees of the lease whiuh had been granted 
by the testator's son, but did not set out the 
date of the lease. The plaintiff excepted to this 
answer for insufficiency : Held (affirming the 
decision of Malins, V.C ), that the rule of the 
court excusing a defendant from answering in 
cases of forfeiture did not apply, as the plaintiff 
waa a trustee, and the society claimed to be his 
cestuis que trust, and ho therefore had a right to 
know under what title they claimed, and that the 
society must, therefore, set out the date of the 
lease. Bxception accordingly allowed : (Hurst v. 
Burst, 31 L. T. Bep. N. 8. 264. Ch.) 

Suit for Dissolution —Parties liTino 
APART under Deed of Separation. — The 
parties were living apart under a deed of separa. 
tion, when the husband prvsented a petition for 
divoroe, on the ground of hia wife's adultery. The 
wife made a counter-charge of cruelty, and prayed 
for a judicial separation. At the hearing of the 
case, the jnry found all the issues in favour of the 
wife : Held, that the institution of the suit re- 
mitted the wife to the position whioh she held 
before the deed of separation, and that, being the 
successful puty, she was entitled to the full 
remedy allowed by the law, viz., a judicial separa- 
tion : (Bromn v. Brown and Sheltom, 31 L. T. 
Bep. N. 8. 272. Div.) 

Married Woman's Will-Desertion by Hub- 
band — Limited Grant — Married Women's 
Property Act. — Testatrix was a married woman 
who had been deserted by her husband in 1866. 
The property which she diapo'ed of by her will 
oonBisted of her earnings since 1866, which had all 
been invested since 1870. The court limited the 
probate to propeo^ acquired since 1870, the date 
of the Married Women's Property Act : (In the 
goods of E. Pepper, 31 L. T. Eep. N.S. 274. Prob.) 

Leases and Sales of Settled Estates Act 
(19 & 20 Vict. c. 120) s. 23— Proceeds of Sale 
— Application to Permanent Improvements. 
— The court has jurisdiction, nnder the 23rd 
section of the Leases and Sales of Settled Estates 
Act, to direct the proceeds of the sale of a portion 
of an estate nnder that Act to be laid out in the 
permanent improvement of the rest of the estate. 
Expenditure of the proceeds of such a sale in the 
erection of farm buildings authorised by the 
oourt: (Be Newman's Settled Estates, 31 L. T. 
Bep.N.a265. Chan.) 


LIVantf errsd to th« Oommlaaionen for the Bedootion of the 
NAtloDSl Debt, and whlcn will be paid to the penons 
respeccireljr whose uamaa are preflied to each in three 
xnonthA, onleM oUier claimants aooner appear.! 

Bathb (Sir Wm.), Bart., Portland-place, Mldd>e(sx, one 
dlTidend on the "am of £M''0 Thres per Gent. Annnltle*. 
Claiiiiant, :8ir Wm. John Walter Banu, Bare, ooe of 
tbs ezeonton of Sir Wm. Baimes, Bart., deoeaaeo. 

Iionxm An> Piiau Hotil CoMPAirr (bivrrss.)— Petition 
for winding-up to be heard Not. 12, before V.C. U . 

liAST Day or Paoor. 

FiitHER CSVm. G.l, 265, Oxford-Btreet, Middletex, china and 
plans dealer. Nov. SO; J. T. uavi-s. Bolicitor, 3\ Moor- 
gatfl-xtreen. Loti'^on. Dec 11; V.C. H.. at twelve o'clo-k. 

Newill (Kiza'^eth^. Huildersrield, widow, innkeeper and 
vine and hjiirit uierchaut, Dec.S: Learoyd and L arovd, 
^olicit.ors. Uudderatield. Dec. 17: V.C. H., at twelfe 

Newil:. ( Jas. W.). HnddcT-ifield, wine and spirit merchant. 
Dec. S ; Learovd and Lear jyd. solicitors, Hudderilield. 
Deo. 17: V.C. H., at twelve o'clock. 

CBEDrrOBS ITNDEB 22 & 23 VICT. 35. 

Xoft I>ay of Claim, and to whem Forttcalar* (a 6« «mt. 
Bakf.r CJas ), formerly of 2, Melbonrne-terrace. Pcnse, 

Bnrrey, late of Woaton Lodfje, M«ple road. Pense. war^ 

buuKeiuan. Jan. 16 : £. Bnrkitt. solieitur, 6, London-waU, 

BftoMFiELD (James L.), Hamilton square, Birkena*ad, and 

Ne»gat«-8treet, Cheater, solicitor. Doo. 3« ; W. and 

H. T. Brown and Sogers, solicitora, 99, Northgate-street, 

Bbownc (EUzabetbl, .W, Great Dover.street, Sonttawark, 

Snrroy. widnw. Nov. SO; Carter and Bell, so-icitorB, 
10^ Leaderihall-iftreet, London. 
BrRBiDi.E (JoB.i, Daveniry, geLt.eman. Dec. 14: John 8. 

Bavane, Rugby. _ ,, „ , v . x, 

BuiiBELL(Oeo. A.), BarkinK. Eaaex. ooal merchant. Nov. 

SO : G. Lj-nes and Co., soUcitors. 2i». Mark-lane, London. 
Obrist'e iWm.], Myrtle Cuttane, Wellington-road. Bow- 
road, Uiiia loses, Esq. Dec. 10; Thos. Baddeley and 

Boos. soUcitors, V^. Leman street, Lonuon. 
Oo'^K I Astleyi. 26, Momington-rt>td, Hegent'a-park. Middle. 

sex, Ksq. Dec. 1; H. G. Smith solicitor, t, Wamford. 

court, Throgmorton-fetreet, London 
Cole I Wm ), Surrey County Lunatic Asylum, near Tooting 

Bur-ey, Esq. Dec. 17; Vizari. Crowdor. and Co., so& 

citors, r>5. l,incoln'8.inn.fli.ld.% Middlesex. 
OOLLimiBorBNE (Wm. P.), sen ; Covi'ntry, pawnbroker. 

Dec. 1 : Twnt and Sons, solicitors, 10, Hertford. street. 

Dakvns ^^08. H.), formerly of the M'ddle Templar 
London, and of Rugby, and late of !, Slowe Villae. Tot- 
tenham, Middlesex, Esq. Dec. *): Park and Co., BollOl- 
lors, 11, Essex-street, Stran-I, London. 

D*viD?oslJas.), 20. Lan-idowne.terrace, Cheltenham, Ren- 
tleman. Dec. 5; Carr and Co., solicitors, 70, BasingbaU. 
street, London. _ . ^ . „ 

Dn.1. (Tho«.) 6. Park.terraoe. Bniton-road. Surrer. gen- 
tleman. Deo. 15 ; White and Jons, solicitors, 11, Bedford- 
row. London. _ , „ . „ 

BlwiLi, (Henry), Li-hfleld, Esq. Jan. SI; Wm. S. Allen, 
solicitor, Sj. Waterloo-street. Bi rmin g h a m . 

Faulkmkr f Joshua W.). The Phillippines, Brasted, Kent, 
Ksti. Dec. 10 ; Bmndrett and Co., sohcitors, 10, King's 
Bench-walk, Temple, l.ondon. 

Quids , Mary A.; formerly of 'J I, tTnion.road, Rotherhithe, 
Surrey, wiiow. Jan. 1 ; Marchant and PurviA, 8, George- 
yurd. Louibaril.street, London 

GiiCKN (Matthew), Kiraberlev. Norfolk, farmer. Jan. 1; 
AVhites and Co., solicitora. WymondhHra, Norfolk. 

H.^MILTOS (Lieut. -Col. Alexander G. W. i, Boxley Heath. 
Kent. Dec. 6; Uussell and Co.. solicitors, Dartford. 

H.\M-Kis8 (Itsay), Colchester, pavior. flov. 26 ; J. S. Pope. 
t-olic'.tor. Trinity.ptrfet, Colchester. 

H'-ftvisoN (FntnciB), Cowlinge, Suffolk, fanner. Deo. 5; 
i<(it->tiener and Fenn, solicitors, Sewmarket. 

BoLisoK (Francis^, Burnt Stones, Sheffield, merchant. Nor. 
21; H. Walter Ibbotson. solicitor, '2S, Change-Alley, Shef. 

lawELL (Isoacl. Whoatfield Lodge, Headinglev, near Leeds, 
wool uierchaut. Dec. 14 ; U. P. Berry, solicitor. Market- 
place, Hudderatield. :Wm. U.), Wlllesden Lodge. 7, Lawn-place, Shep- 
herd 's-busb. and 5.1, Great BCai7leiK>ne.street, Middlesex, 
vetorlnary surgeon. Nov. 30; Wm. F. Low, solicitor, 67, 
Wimpole-street, Cavendish.«(]tiare. Middlesov. 

KsiouT i Ellen), Slmfold, Sn.esex, Spinster. Nor. SO; B. C. 
iluckson, solicitor, 7. Cannon-stre'it, London. 

Ll.\r (Wra.), OM Change, London, and of Park-hill. 
hjrreatham, Surrey. Dec. 2i; Carr aud Co., solicitors, 70, 
Basinghall-street, London. 

Ij1no:<av iLieut.-G'n. the Hon. Sir Ja».), K C.M.G., S5. 
PiTtman-s(ii.aro, Uiddlese.x. Dec. SO: Park and Co.. 
solicitors, n. Efcfiex-street. Strand, Middle8e.x, 

Mabkiott I John), A«>liford H.dl, Sa'op, K.«ii. Nov. 28; 
Ijace.s anfl Co., solicitors, 1, Union-court. Liverpool. 

PaTuirK fJa;..). Siiears Inn, Northgate. Wakefield, York, 
Innkeeper. Dec. 20 ; C. H, Simp.on, soUcitor, 4i, Ken- 
iiedy-street. Manchester. 

PlEBci (Robert). Clifton-gro-e. Clifton, Bri-tol. maltster 
and brewer. Dec. 10; M. Brittan.and Sons, solicitors. 
Albion Chambers, Bristol. 

Ph[i^TLEY (Geo. K.), Worthing, Esq. Fob. 1 ; Emmet and 
Emmet, soUcitors. 2, Harrison.road, Halifax. 

BtcH^RDsoN (John), Alford, Lincoln, gentleman. Deo. 1; 
L. Jos. Brackenbury, solicitor. Alford. 

Bt)CNi> (Daniel Geo.), Portland House, Edgbaston. Bir- 
mingham, and of the Hango Colliery and Furnaces, 
Tividale, Tipton, Stall's. Dec. SI ; Wm. S. Allen, soli- 
citor. ;lo, Waterloo-street, Birmingham. 

TALroi-KD (Field), lf)3. Sloano-street. Middlesex, artist- 
Dee. 1 : H. M. PbillipB, solicitor, 10, Old Jewry-chamben. 

■Wactei.1. (Eev. John D.). Bi«by, Suflolk. Deo. Ij 
Kitchener and Fenn, solicitors, Newmarket. 

Welleslkv (Mary D.), s, Spsnish. place, Manchester- 
fcquare. Londjn, widow. Doc. f; Ltman and Co., solici- 
tors, 51, Lincoln's-inn-fields, London. 

Vfr.^T (John), Green-lanes, Stoke Newingtou, Middlesex, 
tinrseryman. Nov. v»; T. Gregory, solicitor, 18, Cle- 
inent's-iuu, Strand. Middlesex. 

WiLLixoios tJos.), Fen.end, Balsall, Warwick. Esq. Doc. 
ti; O. and F. B. Moore, solicitors, i. Church-street. 


By Messrs. Beadei.s, at the Mart. 
Horthamptonsbire, near Oundle.— Freehold farm. ooutsiA* 

ing iWa. JJr. :lip.— sold for .tM5'J. 
Enclosures of land, 1S«. Sr. 2lp.— sold for £6D0. 

By Messrs. Newhon and Hardino. at the Hart. 
Herta, St. Albans.— Verulam Villa, freehold— sold for £ttO, 
Uiddle^ex, ni.'ar isudbury Station.— Marina Cottage, free- 
hold-sold for iSino. 
lingsland- road.— Improved irround rents of £180 per annum, 

term l."i years—fiold for £1381). 
Kra. Hand IS, Downham-road, term 44 years— sold for »*. 
Hag^-eiston.— Nos. :t7, S9, and 41. Hertford-place, term 1 
vears— sold for £165. 

WethiPttiap, Nor. 4. 

By Messrs. Edwin Fox and Bouspield, at the Mart* 

Gipey-hiU.— Noe. 10 and 20, Camdon-hill-viilas, Ujrm 77 Itna 



Thnirsda/y, Oct. 15. 
(Befbte W. Tbbtob Paskims, Eaq., Deputy 
The Neva Judge. 
On tnkiii; his seat Mr. Tbzvob Pabkins mid, 
tlutt aa BIr. Horatio Lloyd oonld not enter upon 
his duties nntil he had oompleted tlie rerision 
of the Parliamentaiy lists in whioh he w»a en> 
gaged, and which would ooonpy him till the 19th 
inst., he (Mr. Trevor Parkins) had consented to 
aot in the mean time. He said he felt quite oeriain 
that the appointment of Mr. Llo}[d to this district 
would be regarded willi satisfantion by all gentle- 
men praotising in that court, and not only bythem, 
but by the public of the city of Chester, where Ii« 
was so well known, as well as by the {tnblic of the 
other towns 'within the diiiziot over whioh ho 
would in future preside. 

Brid^nton, on Dehalf of his brother ad'TOoatet, 
said they hailed wiUi delight the appointment of 
Mr. Horatio Lloyd as judge of that ooort, as they 
all entertained a respect for hia legal abilities, aa 
well aa for hia good qualitisa as a gentleman. He 
(Mr. Bridgmaii) felt sure the appointment would 
give nniTenal satisfaction, and so far as they 
oonld render him any assistance in hia ooorta th^ 
would ha'?e great plwtsnre in doing so. 

The following solicitors were i>reaent at th« 
opening of the oourt :— Maaars. Bridgeman, Cart> 
wright, Tatlook, Dnnoam, Chnrton, and C. Y. 


SquUy—Deeretal order— Form. 
An ^tplioation waa made by Cartwright with 
respect to this equity suit, in whioh a decree waa 
made at the laat ooiurt. Be appeared, he aaid, on 
behalf of Qeorge Peters and three or four othera. 
and he complained that the decretal order had 
been drawn up behind hia back, without minr' 

Digitized by 




FNov. 7, 1874. 

and that it contained a clause which entirely pre- 
cluded him from going into the accounts. Ho read 
this, and ooutoudud that the minutes should have 
D<i;tt Bubmittod to the parties interested in the 
suit, so that they might have had an opportunity of 
saying wiii.lher they were correct. He asked that 
the order should be referred back to the registrar, 
Bo that the form of it might be agreed upon and 

Bridgman, who also appeared for one of the 
parties, said the minutes should have been sub- 
mitted before the order was drawn up. 

Marshall said he wished his friend, Mr. Cart- 
wright, had given notice of his intention to make 
the application, because it seemed unfair on his 
part to presume that everyone concerned was neces- 
sarily present. In regard to this particular matter 
the ordinary course was followed. The late judge 
signed the decretal order, after Mr. Cartwright 
himself had consented to its general form. He 
(Mr. Marshall) understood also that notice was 
given to Mr. Cartwright to attend before the re- 
gistrar, but no one came, and ho (Mr. Marshall) 
did not know what the application was for, unless 
it was that Mr. Cartwright should have the con- 
duct of the sale. 

Carhvright then started a discussion as to the 
want of notice, saying that he never heard of such 
a thing as drawing up an order behind one's back. 
He also complained of the plaintiffs seeking to 
take away property which had been in the posses- 
session of his clients sixteen orcighteen years, and 
upon which he had a claim for repairs done. 

Marshall emphatically contradicted this. He 
had asked if the defendants would consent to a 
power of sale being inserted in the decree, and the 
reply was, "Yes." Upon that it was inserted, 
and, in justice to the registrar, Mr. Marshall said 
he must ask him to state what took place. 

The dispute was continued for some time, and 
on 'i'ayJor, solicitor for plaintiffs, coming into 
court, ho said the order was drawn up and signed 
by the judge with the consent of all parties, but 
as ho (Mr. Taylor) did not wish to take any ad- 
vantage, if there was anything to object to, he 
would consent to the order being referred back to 
the registrar, and accordingly it was so refe-""' 

Needhau v. London and Noeth-Westerji 

Railway CoMrANT. 

Application for netu trial. 

In this case at the last court a verdict was given 

for the defendants. 

Marsha,ll (instructed by Massey) now appeared 
to set aside the decision, on the ground mainly 
that it was against the weight of evidence. The 
plaintiff is a cattle dealer who resided at Lichfield, 
and he claimed i;30 damages from the defendants 
in consequence of the delay of live stock in transit. 
With reference to the defendants' case, which was 
that there were only two trains from Lichfield to 
Chester, one at five in the afternoon and the other 
at seven in the evening, and that it was impossible 
to bring the stock quicker thau they were brought, 
Mr. Marshall said that the station master at Lich- 
field was called, but was examined only as to the 
trains between the city of Lichfield and the Trent 
Valley line, as it was said, being a local station 
master, he would have no practical knowledge of 
the working of the line, and the only evidence was 
a time bill showing the trains between Lichfield 
city station and the Trent Valley station. He (Mr. 
Marshall asked for an inspection of the whole book, 
but the learned judge said he did not think the 
other time tables would have any particular bear- 
ing upon the case, and in fact they were not ex- 
amined. It then became a question as to the credi- 
bility of the Btivtion master against the plaintifif. 
The hitter said he arranged to have his stock at the 
station by seven o'clock, so that they might be sent 
away by half.past eight, and the former said he 
never agreed to any such thing. Looking at the time 
bill of the trains between the Lichfield and Trent 
Valley stations, the Ijudge said it was improbable 
the station master should have made any such 
arrangement, and he believed him and gave him a 
verdict. The plaintiff proved that there were various 
delays between Lichfield land Chester, and though 
that was commented upon by the judge in strong 
terms, and it was wholly disregarded in giving 
judgment. Havmg stated further that fresh evi- 
dcnco would bo given as to the stopping of the 
passenger train at Lichfield, by which it was said 
the stock could have been sent on, Mr. Marshall 
alluded to the fact that a jury was empanelled to 
try the case on the last occasion, but that he con- 
sonted to leave it to the judge, owing to a strong 
intimation from him that it would bo much better 
to try without one. 

His HoNooB.— Do I understand yon to say that 
the company relied upon time bills which were 
private ? 

Marshall. — Yes. 

Preston. — Is there to be fresh evidence as to the 
conduct of the station master at Lichfield ? 

Marshall.— Yes. 

Preston. — In what way ? 

Marshall — He stated that he never sent goods 
waggons by the passenger train, and we have evi- 
dence to show that it was so. 

Preston said his friend had forgotten, although 
he had sUited what ho (Mr. Preston) was bound 
to admit was perfectly correct, that the judge 
who tried the case was very much against him 
(Mr. Preston), and that it was only by his 
persistence in carrying on the case that the 
verdict was ultimately in favour of the dofen- 
dants. The main point at issue was as to the con- 
duct of the station master at Lichfield. The question 
was, whether he made a special contract with the 
plaintiff to send off the cattle at 8.30, and that 
being denied by the station master himself, the 
judge thought him more worthy of belief than the 
plaintiff. In the morning, when the cattle did 
leave, they went by a passenger train as far as the 
Lichfield lower station, but that was a stopping 
train, and not a fast train like the 8.30, and they 
were sent by that at tho request of the plaintiff 
himself. There was no contract entered into on 
the Monday, and tho judge upheld that view. Mr. 
Preston further argued that there was no unneces- 
sary delay, and that the company were only bound 
to carry in the ordinary way. He also took the 
technical objection that on an application being 
made for a new trial an affidavit should have been 
filed, stating what tho new matter was, and said 
that so far from the application being made in the 
interests of justice, it was simply an attempt to 
evade payment of .£19. 6s. costs. 

Marshall denied this, and said the plaintiff was 
prepared to pay at once. Ho also said that he had 
inquired into the practice of the court, and found 
that an affidavit was unnecessary. 

There was then some discussion as to costs, in 
the course of which the registrar was appealed to, 
and ultimately 

His Honour decided to grant the application 
for a new trial by a jury, the plaintiff paying costs 
of the former trial. 


Saturday, Oct. 10. 

(Before F. A. Bedwell, Esq., Judge.) 

Shepherd v. Strakek. 

Cheques deposited with a slakeholdei — Lawfu, 

game — Right to recover. 
The plaintiff is a horse dealer at Beverley, and 
tho defendant is an innkeeper at Driflield. They 
met at the Buck Inn, DrifGeld, and agreed to play 
at billiards for .£10 a side, the plaintiff putting 
down cash to that amount in the hands of a stake- 
holder, and the defendant covering the £10 with a 
cheque on his own banker to that amount. The 
plaintiff won the game and the cash and the 
cheque were handed to him. A second game was 
then played on the same terms and with a like 
result. The stakes were then raised to j£20 a 
side. Again plaintiff deposited cash and the de- 
fendant a cheque, and again the plaintiff won, and 
the cash and cheque wore handed to him. Pay- 
ment of the three cheques was stopped by the 
defendant. An action was then brought by the 
plaintiff for the recovery of ^640, the amount of 
the cheques. 

Summers, of Hull, appeared for the plaintiff. 

White for the defendant. 

Summers argued that the stakes having been 
deposited in the hands of a stakeholder, the case 
came within the meaning of the 8 & 9 Viet. o. 100, 
s. 18, under which where a person subscribed or 
made a contribution tov-'irds any money to be 
awarded to the winner , f a lawful game, the 
winner was legally entitled to the amount. The 
cheques had been treated as cash, and were 
deposited in the hands of a stakeholder to abid. 
the event. 

White contended that the case did not coma 
within the above Act, for, according to the 15th 
section, bills of exchange given for gaming were 
specially excepted, and the 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 41, 
oontaiued the law affecting the present case, undei 
which any bill of exchange or note for money won 
by gaming was deemed to be given for an illegal 
consideration. A cheque was in effect a bill of 
exchange, and the plaintiff could not recover. 

His Honour, in giving judgment, said this was 
a case of considerable importance. So far as he 
could find, tho case was not covered by any 
authority ; he could not find any decision upon 
the exact point; tho statutes applicable to the 
case were tho 9tli Anne, o. 14, 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 41, 
and 8 & 9 Vict. o. 109. By the first Act it was 
enacted that all notes, bills, bonds, judgments, 
mortgages, and other securities given where the 
consideration waa for any money won by gaming 
should be utterly void. By the 5 & 6 Will. 4, 
0. 41, a very important alteration was made, which 
makes all fraudulent schemes for raising money 
at gaming equivalent to obtaining money by faUe 
pretences with intent to defraud, and it enacts 
that all contracts by way of gaming shall be void, 
and no one shall recover any money won as a 
wager, or which ahall have been deposited in the 

hands of any person to abide the event. It was 
to that Act that they must look for the law 
applicable to the present case. Billiards was a 
perfectly lawful game, and that Act recognised 
that it was lawful to play at lawful games to the 
extent of subscribing for a prize or sum of money 
to be awarded to the winner, and if these cheques 
were not agreements to contribute to the winner at 
a lawful game ho was at a loss for a definition to 
describe them. If he hud only to deal with the 
18th section he should have no difficulty in de- 
ciding, but on the other hand, with the Act of the 
Queen they had to read the Act of Anne as al- 
tered by the Act of William IV. The two latter 
statutes enacted that no note or bill if given for 
money won at playing any game was given for 
an Illegal consideration. But on the Act of Her 
present Majesty he should hold that tho cheques 
were not money payments, but were given for 
money, and must be treated as having been given 
for an illegal consideration, and that the defendant 
was entitled to a verdict. In Batty v. Marriott, 
it was held that in a foot race where only the 
two persons who ran contributed to a stake, the 
loser could not recall his contribution, because 
the transaction was within the provisions of the 
18th section of the 8 & 9 Vict. He could, 
find no case bearing on the present one, and he 
must, therefore, express his own independent 
opinion on that point, and decide accordingly. 
The defendant, in his opinion, " held himself forth 
as having in effect contributed to a stake, though 
the money was not actually deposited," and, 
having done so, he was not within the reach of 
the plaintiff, and his verdict was for the defendant, 
with costs. His Honour added that he would, 
grant a case, if asked. 


Saturday, Oct. 24. 

(Before T. Bradshaw, Esq., Judge.) 

The ap2)lication for the committal of a Newcastle 

In respect to tho order made on Friday, requiring 
Mr. Anchor Thompson, solicitor, to pay .£18 2s. 6d., 
or be committed to prison for twenty-one days, 
Mr. Thompson remarked that it was stated at that 
time that he had not paid the amount. Tho order 
was made for ^611 33., which was £3 too much, 
and his Honour remarked that what Mr, £dge 
saidj and what he happened to know from the 
Registrar, was that the sum was really now about 
.£18 odd, and that in consequence of his not 
having gone to Mr. Macdonald to make some 
arrangements to pay the money, Mr. Macdonald 
had engaged counsel, and applied to the court for 
an order for payment, that Mr. Thompson sent a 
cheque to the trustee, but the trustee had refused, 
to receive it as it was not sufhcient. 

IViompson said that the matter stood thuei 
There was no doubt that his Honour made an 
order in July for him to pay ^11 3s., and there 
was no doubt that that sum had not been paid. 
Ho had never received the jfill 3s. in tho first 
instance,, and it wasaquestion whether ho should 
pay the money that he had received back to tho 
estate. His Honour had held that whatever tho 
debtor paid him he should pay back to the estate ; 
he could not be called upon to pay what he had 
not received. 

The Judge stated that he held that the sum o£ 
£8 2s. Od. shou d be paid. 

Ttwmpson : The costs allowed to me by the 
Registrar amounted to .£20, and — 

His Honour. — My order simply refers to somo 
money yon have to pay to somebody. 

Thompson. — The whole question is, how much 
should I get from the debtor P 

His Honour. — The whole question is howmnch 
do yon owe Mr. Macdonald ? 

Thorripson said the original sum was jCll Ss., 
and then there were .£6 17s. 6d., making in all 
jEIS 2s. 6d. In July last he only went into the 
question he should pay the money back ; he ia- 
tended to engaje Mr. Blackwall, but he was not 
at the court. However, the order not being made 
he wrote a letter and found that he had only 
received ^£8 7s., which would be the amount his 
Honour meant him to pay. Surely his Honour 
did not want him to pay more than he received. 

His Honour remarked that the best plan would 
be to shorten the discussion, because it would not 
not avail anything. After ho had paid tho 
4;18 28. tid., then if tho matter were brought up 
before him (his Honour) things might be cor- 

Thompson. — Statements have been made which 
have appeared in the newspapers and goue all over 
Enghind, and I am the person named ; if your 
Honour chose to make orders that I am to bear 
the brunt of ^— 

His Honour. — I do not know what yon mean 
by that, but my order yesterday was that you are 
to pay j£18 2s. 6d., and when you have done that, 
if you feel aggrieved — 

'f/iompson.— Certainly, I feel aggiieTed. 

digitized by 


Nov. 7, 1874.J 



His HoNOUB. — Then nuike an application before 
me in the proper mode. 

Thompion.— Then I hope you will Bay that Mr. 
SIsodonald had no right to bring the proceedings 
of Friday, and laonoh me into aU the oewspapers 
in the kingdon. 

Bis HoNOUB. — I cannot ezpreie any opinion. 

Thompson. — And I will hare to pay X3 that I 
did not receive P 

His Honour.— If you do not pay you will hare 
to go to prison for twenty-one days. 

Thompson.— The money is all paid, exoept the 
£3 ; there is the oheqae I lent the day before 

His HoNOint.— If you aak my adTioe, pay the 
money, and aftorwards oome before me with Mr. 
llaodonald, and I will do what I oan to help yon. 

Thomvton. — After the treatment I have been 
subjected to I cannot meet Mr. Uacodnald on any 
terms whatever. 

In answer to a farther remark of Thompson, his 
HoNOUB repeated that he ooold do nothing until 
the money was paid. 

Thompson thui retired from the court. 


Wednesday, Oct. 24. 

(Before H. J. Stonob, Esq., Judge.) 

BscKx V. Obiat Westkbn Railway. 

Baihoof/ eompany-^aniers of passengers— Vn. 

punctuality — Void ngulation. 
Thx plaintiff appeared in person; Wightman 
Wood appeared for the defendants. 

His Honour.— This is an action tried by me at 
the Jnly Court, previously to the vacation in 
August, upon which I reserved my judgment until 
the September Court, and, at the request of the 
defendants' counsel, I further postponed it until 
the October Court. The plaintiff, who is a soli- 
oitor, is treasurer of the County Court of Henley 
and other places, sued the defendants for 6s. 6d., 
the expense^ of a oouveyance from Twyford to 
Henley, which the plaintiff incurred in conse- 
quence of the defendants' non-performanoe of a 
oontraot by them to carry him from Beading to 
Henley b^ a certain train. The facts to which 
the plaintiff deposed, or which were admitted, are 
as follows : On Tuesday, the 5th May, the plaintiff 
took a first-class return ticket from Beading to 
Henley by the train timed by the defendants* 
tables to arrive at Beading at 10.25 ; to leave 
Beading at 10.30 ; to arrive at Twyford at 10.40, 
to leave Twyford at 10.45, and arrive at 
Henley at 11 a.m. The train arrived at Beading 
punctually at 10.25, but did not leave Beading till 
10^, so that it was detained at Beading nine 
minutes beytnd its proper time. On arriving at 
Twyford, the plaintiff found that the train to 
Henley had just left, and there was no other train 
for an hour. He took a By and got to Henley in 
about half au hour. The deky at Beading was 
oooasioned prindpally by th3 want of porters to 
put luggage into the tram. The train was a very 
light one, the plaintiff being the only first-class 
dassenger. The pbuntiff had frequently witnessed 
delays at the_ Beading and other stations on the 
defendants' line occasioned by the same cause. 
The plaintiff admitted that he was cognizant of 
a notice whioh the defendants prefixed to their 
time-tables, and that he pnrehased his ticket 
subject to such notice and to a regulation identi- 
cal witii such notice contained in the general 
legnlations of the company. Such notice and 
ngulation are in the following terms : " The pub- 
lished train-billa of this company are only 
intended to fix the time at whioh passengers may 
be certain to obtain their ticketo for any journey 
bom the various stations, it being understood 
that the trains shall not start from them before 
the appointed time, but the directors give notice 
that the company do not undertake that the trains 
■hall start or arrive at the time specified in the 
trills, nor will thejr be aoootutable for any loss, 
inoonvenienoe or injunr, whioh may arise from 
delays or detention, unless upon proof that suoh 
loss, inconvenience, injury, delay, or detention 
■toee in consequence of the wilful misoonductof 
the company's serrante. The granting of through 
tiekete to place* off the company's lines is an 
srrangement made for the greater oouTenienoe of 
the public, but the company will not hold them- 
selves responsible for any delay, detention, or 
other loss or injury whatsoever arising off their 
lines, or from theacte or defanlte <^ other parties, 
nor for the correotnses of the times over other lines 
or companies, nor for the arrival of this company's 
own trains in time for the nominally correspond- 
ing trains of any other company. Passengers 
booking at intermediate stetions can only do so 
oonditionally upon there being room in the 
train." The defeadante deolined to eall any 
evidence, and contended, first, that the contract 
in question was not broken, inasmuch as it did not 
Una the defendante to convey the plaintiff to 
Henley at any given time, but only within 
» reMonaUe time, and that if the pUntiff had 

waited and proceeded by the next train they 
would have conveyed him there within a reason- 
able time ; and, seoondly, that if the contract was 
broken, the defendante were not liable, because 
in order to render them liable, the plaintiff was 
bound by the above regulation to show that the 
delay arose from the wilful misconduct of the 
company's servanto, and that he had failed to do 
so. On both sides it was intimated that the case 
was brought before me for the purpose of bring- 
ing it before the Court of Appeal, so as to settle 
the important question of the liabilities of rail- 
way companies as carriers of passengers for 
delays upon their lines, whioh has lately been so 
frequently raised in County Courto. It is now 
exactly a year since Mr. Forsyth brought his 
action against the present defendante— the Great 
Western Bailway Company— in this oonrt, in 
which he proved that a train in which he had tra- 
velled had been prevented from arriving at Bead- 
ing at the time specified in the table by repeated 
and considerable delays, apparently without any 
reasonable cause, and I then held that the 
defendants were bound to show reasonable cause 
for such delays, which the defendante failed to 
do, and I, therefore, gave judgment in favoor of 
the plaintiff, with liberty to the defendante to 
appeikl; but, unfortunately, they neglected to 
comply vrith the rules of the court relating to 
appeals, and lost the opportunity which was then 
afforded to them. Since then similar actions 
have been brought in several of the County 
Courte, and I believe that all my learned brethren 
before whom such cases have oome, with the ex- 
ception of the learned judge of the Bath County 
Court, Mr. Caillard, have taken the same view 
which I did, and that in every case liberty of 
appeal has been given, but that no appeal has yet 
been brought. The present case is certainly not 
nearly so strong a case of delay and apparent neg- 
lect as Mr.Forsyth'8,and there is also a distinction 
between the two oases, inasmuch as Mr. Forsyth's 
contract with the oompanpr was subject to a 
different notice and regulation from that whioh is 
now contained in the teblesof the defendante, and, 
in point of fact, the notice and regulation were 
altered by the defendante immediately after the 
decision of Mr. Forsyth's ease, with a view of 
further restricting their liability. Such altera- 
tion consisted in omitting the following words : — 
" Every attention will be paid to insure punc- 
tuality so far as practicable," whioh were prefixed 
to the notice, and the addiaon to the stipulation 
that they will not be responsible for delays or 
detentions of the following words : — " Unless 
upon proof that such delay or detention arose in 
consequence of the wilful misoondoot of the com- 
pany's servante." Beaerving for the present the 
consideration of the validity and operation of the 
notice and regulation as altered, I will consider, 
first, the contention of the defendante that the 
contract between them and the plaintiff was 
merely to convey him to Henley in a reasonable 
time, and that the contract was not broken by the 
delay at Twyford, inasmuoh as there was another 
train to Henley at the expiration of an hour whioh 
would have conveyed him there within a reason- 
able time. Now, fat once oonoede that the oon- 
traot between the defendante and the plaintiff 
was to convey the latter to Henley in a reasonable 
time. Suoh was the liability of carriers of pas- 
sengers at common law, and railway companies 
have only the same liabilitiee. This u expressly 
declared by the 89th section of the Bailway 
Clauses Act 1845 (which, I presume, is incor- 
porated in the Great Western Bailwajr Act ; at all 
evente,so far as the Henley Branch Bulwa^) ; but, 
independently of that clause, I do not think that 
railway companies would be further liable than 
other carriers of passengers at common law. 
What, then, is the liability of carriers of passen. 
gers at common law P Simply to use all reasonable 
means to convey passengers to their destinations 
in the reasonable times which they have expressly 
fixed on, which, if not so fixed, juries may deter- 
mine. Before the introduction of railways there 
were frequently coach proprietors who agreed to 
perform their journey in so many hours, and, 
therefore, to use every reasonable means and 
diligence for that purpoae, and if by reason of 
their neglect of such means or want of such dili- 
genoe they failed to complete their oontracta there 
can be no doubt that actions must have lain 
against them. Of course, the condition of the 
roads whioh were not under their control and 
many other circumstances, and especially sud- 
den aoddento, would have been nuid duences 
to such actions, and therefore they were often 
very difficult to try. Moreover, the proprietors 
seldom if ever entered into these special contraote 
as to time excepting when there was great compe- 
tition, and then they used their best endeavours, 
as did also their servants (who were often stimu- 
lated by a system of premiums or fines), to per- 
form these oontracte with the greatest exactitude. 
Actions for the breach of such contraote were 
consequently very rare, and I have not been able 
to find a report of any case of the kind. In most 
cases, however, the ooach proprietors merely con- 

tracted to convey the passenger to a particular 
place without speoifying any time, and were 
only bound to perform their contract within a 
reasonable time, which, as I have already said, was 
for a jury to determine, regard being bad to all 
the cirsnmstanoes of the case. Bailway companies, 
on the other hand, have invariably fixed their own 
times of arival, and therebv fixed what are reason- 
able times, and if they fail, from want of due 
diligenoe, to perform their contraote, I think 
that they are clearly liable in the same manner 
as coach proprietors under similar contraote. 
Having the absolute control of their lines, and 
their lines being less liable to be affected by the 
weather than the roads, they have in these re- 
speote much less difficulty in performing their 
express contraote than coach proprietors. On the 
other hand, they are open probably to more name- 
rous and more serious accidente aa to the ir en- 
gines and carriages than the coach proprietors 
were as to their coaches and horses. But, how. 
ever this may be, the effect of weather on the 
lines and accidente of many kinds will doubtless 
constitute valid defences to actions brought 
against them, as thejr did against actions brought 
against ooach proprietors under similar circum> 
stances. In the case of Denton v. The Oreat 
Northern Kattivoy Company (5 El. A El, 865), 
the Court of Queen's Bench decided that the 
publication of time tebles amounted to an express 
promise to run trains to the places and at the 
times stoted, and Mr. Serjt. Wheeler, the learned 
judge of the Marylebone County Court, in his 
elaboratejudgmentin thecase of Turner v. The 
Great Western Railway, last May (reported in tho 
County Courts Chrontcle, 4 N. S. 387, and also in 
the La\o Times and Law Journal), observes with, 
regard to railway companies. " that the question of 
reasonable time is no longer left at large, but is in 
fact fixed by the companies themsdves, subject 
of course to aocident which reasouable care could 
not provide against.' ' In the present case it is 
quite dear that the absence of porters at the 
Beading Stetion, whioh reasonable oare might (as 
far as appears) have prevented, caused the 
detention of the plaintiff at Twyford, and as he 
was able to procure a conveyance by whioh he got 
to Henley substantially half an hour sooner than 
the railway company were prepared to convey 
him by the next train, I think that he was justi* 
fied in hiring it, and that (subject to the next 
questioD) he is entitled to recover ite cost against 
the defendante. The next question which remains 
for me to consider is, whether the notice and 
regulation contained in the defendante' Ubles 
deprive the plaintiff of his right to recover 
against the defendante. Now, this notice and 
regulations as altered came before the learned 
judge of the Marylebone County Court in the case 
I have already referred to, and he there com- 
mented upon it so fully and so ably that I cannot 
do better than quote his remarks. Beferring to 
the notice and regulation which came be- 
fore me in Mr. Forsyth's case, he obeerves : — 
"The company's notice of August commenced 
with these words : * Every attention will be paid to 
insnre punotnaliiy as far as practicable.' This 
really is all that the law requires. 'But,' con- 
tinued the notice, ' the directors do not underteke 
that the trains shall arrive at the time spedfied in 
the time table.' Here I may remark that, irre- 
spective of any notification by the company, the 
law does not imply any such undertaking, its re- 
quisitions being simply that there shall be no 
failure of punctuality for want of reasonable oare 
or diligence. The notice then adds, ' Nor will 
the direotors be aocounteble for any loss, 
inconvenience, or injury which may arise from 
delay or detention, and subject to their pay. 
ing every reasonable attention, they would 
not be aocounteble for the consequences of any 
delay or detention. Since August, however, the 
notice has been materially changed. The passage 
about paying every attention to insure pnno* 
tualit^ is omitted, and the company expressly 
promise nothing, but the omission is immaterial, 
because what they do not promise the law implies 
against them. The next change is the addition to 
the stipulation that they will not be iesponubl» 
for delay in the words ' unless upon proof that it 
arose from the wilful misconduct of their ser- 
vante.' Upon the faith of their present notice, 
the defendante contend in effect that they are un- 
fettered as to times of starting and arrival, not- 
withstanding their time tebles, in the absence of 
proof of wilful misconduct on the part of their 
servante. To such a propoution it is somewhat 
difficult to listen with patience. In 1870, in the 
case of Buckmaster v. The Great Eastern Rail- 
way Company (23 L. J. 471 Ex.), which vras 
an action for damages sustained by the plain- 
tiff by reason of the company not sterting ik 
train as advertised in their time bills, and in 
which the plaintiff obtained a verdict, Martin, B., 
said that it was mere nonsense for oompaniee to 
sa^, as in effect the company in that case had 
said — * We wiU be guilty of any negligence we 
think fit, and we willnot be responsible. " With 
respect to the notice in this case, the learn*' 

Digitized by 




[Nov. 7, 1874. 

judge of tho Marj'lebono County Court thus con- 
cludes : " 1 am of opinion that it is ulfra vires so 
far as it prufesst'S to attach to tho ri,i;ht of travel- 
ling on their own line, the condition that the com- 
pany will not bo responsible for any short- 
comings of their servants not amounting to wilful 
misconduct, whatever thut term may mean." In 
this view as to the invalidity of the stipulation 
ic question 1 fully concur. It seems to me to be 
a monstrora proposition that the railway com- 
panies, who are bound by their special Acta and 
the Biiilway Clauses Consolidation Act 184i5, s. 86, 
to carry psssengcrs at rates fixed within certain 
limits, should be able to affix to their contracts 
with the passengers a stipulation which, if valid, 
would deprive the passengers of their common 
law right to the performance with due diligence 
of the company's contract with thera and might 
hereafter be extended to thccomptiuy's liability in 
respect of the personal safety of passengers. There 
is one other remark I would wish to add, 
viz., that the restriction as to the com- 
pany's liability for not corresponding with 
other trains contained in the notice and regula- 
tion in question only extends to cases where their 
trains fail to correspond with trains of other com- 
panies and not with other trains of their own, 
which is the present case. Having stated my 
opinion as to the liability of the company at 
common law to the defendant and of the in- 
validity of the above notice and regulation so 
far as it restricts such liability in the present 

' case, it still remains for me to consider the 
last point raised by the defendants, viz. : — 
"Whether, if tho notice and regulation were 
valid, and the plaintiff was bound by it to show 
wilful misconduct on the part of the defendants' 
servants, be has sbo .vn it in the present case ; in 

-other words, whether the absence of the porters 
through their own fault, or by the orders of 
superior servants of the company, was, under 
all the circumstances of the present case, in 
point of law, 'wilful misconduct,' and I think 
•with some doubt that it ought to be so held, and 
on this point I beg to refer once more to the 
judgment of the learned judge of the Marylebone 
County Court, in Turner v. The Grunt iVestern 
Sailway Comyany, and the authorities therein 
cited as to the legal interpretation of the words 
" wilful misconduct." The only case that I am 
aware of that militates against my view is that of 
Hussell V. The Great Western Railwav Company, 
(i Co. Cts. Chron., N. S. 385), before the learned 
judge of the Bath County Count, to which I have 
already referred, in which he held that the altered 
notice or regulation was valid and operative to 
restrict the defendants' liability in cases of proved 
wilful misconduct on the part of their servants, 
but from what I have said it will be seen that I 
cannot concur in his view. Upon the whole I am 
in favour of the plaintiff on all the points of law 
and fact involved in this case, and a verdict will 
therefore be entered for tho plaintiff for the 

. amount claimed with costs, and with liberty to 
the defendants to appeal within one month. 

Me. Horatio Lloyd receives his appointment 
as County Court Judge for the Chester and North 
Wales District, amid a chorus of congratulations 
from his numerous friends in the locality, in which 
wo most heartily join. The Lord Chancellor, in 
communicating the appointment, made some highly 
complimentary allusions to Mr. Lloyd's position 
and character on the North Wales Circuit ; and 
expressed his conviction that, with his experience 
in Welsh practice, and the knowledge of the 
country he possesses, added to his general legal 
acquirements, his appointment would be most 
conducive to tho public scrvico. And this is tho 
opinion, we are glad to say, which is universally 
formed. No one at the Welsh Bar, and very few 
on other circuits, have had more success in attract- 
ing clients ; and that means work efficiently dote 
and valuable practioiil knowledge acquired in doing 
it For more than twenty years Mr. Lloyd has 
been a bu8.y practising lawyer, in the criminal 
courts, at Nisi Prius, and in railway matters ; and 
it is hard to say whether he will be more greatly 
missed on his retirement from this active theatre 
of labonr, or from the society of his fellow members 
of the Bar, among whom his geniality had always 

fiven him a hearty welcome. It is still said by a 
Bw, indeed, and in a somewhat hesitating way, 
that a Welshman born ought to have been ap- 
pointed. Well, Whig and Tory Governments have 
both tried, and neither of them have been able to 
find this clever native yet. A Carnarvon contem- 
porary si)oke of men high up at tho Chancery and 
Common Law Bars who might be nominated ; but if 
such gentleman of Welsh-speaking qualifications 
exist, they are like Scotchmen who have gone south 
— ^they don't care about returning to their native 
hills again. And it would be better, certainly, to 
have a good lawyer and a bad Welshman, tlian a 
good Welshman and a bad lawyer. The subject 
baa become almost disagreeable from the persist- 

ency with which the demand is urged, to tho ox* 
elusion of all other considerations ; but we feel 
sure that tho new judge will have no difficulty in 
satisfying his keenest critics on this hca 1 by the 
exhibition of other quaUfieations which Welsh- 
speakingalonecouldnot supply. Onepointhas been 
discussed since the appointment was male, to 
which wo may refer. It is asked whether Mr. 
Lloyd will retain tho rooordorship of Chester ? 
There is no statutory provision against his doing 
so, and there are several instances where both 
offices are in the same hands. We have not yet 
heard what Mr. Lloyd's definite intentions in this 
respect are, but it would not bo difficult, perhaps, 
to form a tolerably accurate opinion. We are glad 
to find that an adjourned sitting of the October 
County Court is to bo held next week, in order to 
clear off the arrears, which had become a standing 
dish under the old rcjim^. The new judge will 
commence with a clean sheet, and we have not the 
least doubt that, with fairly frequent courts, the 
business of the publio will be rapidly and effi- 
ciently transacted. — Chester Chronicle. 


Bill of Exchange— Cko-ss Acceptances — 
Amendinq Proof after realisation op Secc- 
RITY. — A bank carrying on business in Bombay 
sold to a Bombay firm acceptances of the bank for 
.£25,000, payable three and four months after 
sight, in consideration of .i.'iOOO cash and bills for 
.£20,000 drawn by the Bombay firm on a London 
firm, and payable six months after sight. All the 
bills were accepted. Tho Bombay firm indorsed 
the acceptances for X25,000 to the London firm. 
The b.ank being unable to pay the three months' 
bills when they became due, gave the London firm 
security for ^610,000, tho amount thereof. Soon 
afterwards the bank was ordered to be wound-up, 
and the Bombay and London firms both became 
bankrupt. The trustees of the London firm sent 
in a claim in the winding-up of the bank for JE5000, 
treating the acceptances of tho London ^rm as 
capable of being sot off against those of tb^ bank 
and they subsequently realised their sc inrity 
They now sought to amend their claim ( lavin; 
ascertained that the bank had disoonnted lUl th( 
acceptances of the London firm, and was nr-wenti 
tied to a set off in respect of them) and to prove ii 
tho winding-up of tho bank for i;iS),0C9, th( 
amount of the bank's acceptances, which V7?re ii 
the hands of the London firm at the date of the 
winding up order. Held (affirming the decision of 
Hall, V.C.) , that as the London firm were indorsees 
for value, they were entitled to prove for the 
i;]9,000 ; that this proof must not be treated as a 
new proof, but as an amendment of the clain for 
^5000, and that, therefore, the amount realised 
upon their security should not be deducted from 
the ^£19,000. Ex parte Macredie ; Re Charles (28 
L. T. Rep. N. S. 828 ; L. Rep. 8 Ch. 5.'J9) explained: 
(Re The London, Bomlay, and Mediterranean 
liank {Limited) ; Cama, and Copy's claim (31 
L. T. Rep. N. S. 234. Chan.) 

Jurisdiction— SusPF.NSiON of Proceedings 


— Where creditors have by the requisite statutory 
majority resolved, under tho UOth section of the 
Bankruptcy Act 18G1, to suspend proceedings in 
bankruptcy, and to have the estate wound-up by 
trustees, the Court of Bankruptcy has still power, 
under tne 136th section of the Act, to determine 
any questions that may arise in the winding-up of 
the estate by the trustees, and will therefore re- 
strain a Chancery suit for the administration of 
the estate : {Ex parte Penyslon, re I'artrid'ie, 31 
L. T. Eep. N. S. 259. Chan.) 


Taesdaxj, Nov. 3. 
(Before Mr. Registrar Keene.) 
Re Sidney and Wiqoins. 
Composition— Registration of resolnlions — Second 

liquidation petition — Failure of debtors io pay 

composition vndcr first. 
In this matter it appeared that the debtors filed 
a petition for liquidation in 1873, and under 
that the creditors agreed to accept a composition 
of 2s. 6d. in the pound, to be secured by certain 
promissory notes. This arrangement they failed 
to carry out completely, having paid somo credi- 
tors Is. Cd., and others nothing. A year passed, 
and the debtors incurred fresh losses and lia- 
bilities, and were unable to pay the composition, 
and being pressed by creditors they filed a second 
petition, nnder which a statutory majority of the 
creditors agreed to accept Cd. in the pound. The 
resolution came before Mr. Registrar Roche, who 
adjourned the case for a fortnight to enable the 
debtors to consider their position. It now came 
on before Mr. Registrar Keene. 

P. Octavius Crump appeared as counsel for the 

Myers {Parker, iya(7i<ry,and Clavfe) and Noakes 
{Rind. Bailey) represented the opposing credi- 

The objections were stated in the notice of 
motion to be that the filing of the Eccond petition 
was irregular and contrary to law, and not antho- 
rioed or warranted by the Bankruptcy Act 1869, 
the previous petition and the resolution for a 
composition being still in force, and tlie creditors 
thereunder being still entitled to receive the 
amount of the composition ; and further, that 
previously to the filing of the second petition appli- 
cation was made to the debtor's agent, and to the 
debtors themselves, for payment of the dividends 
nnder the first resolution, and payment had been 
refused ; and that it would be inequitable to 
regi.ster the said resolution, on the ground that 
all those creditors who had already received a 
dividend of Is. 6d. in the pound would, it such 
resolution was registered, receive 28. in the pound 
on their respective debts, whilst those creditors 
who hod not been paid the dividend of Is. 6d. 
would, if such resolution were passed, receive 6d. 
in the pound only. 

The Registrar asked what could be said in 
answer to the objections of creditors. 

Crump argued that, under the circumstances of 
the case, the debtors, by filing a second petition, 
had consulted the best interests of all their 
creditors ; and further, that such a course was 
perfectly regul.^r and legal. As to tho equities of 
the case, it appeared by the affidavit of tho 
debtors that when they first went into liquidation 
the report of a public accountant showed that their 
estate would i)ay a dividend of -Ijd, in the pound. 
Under great pressure, and wi(h the assistance of 
relatives, means, it was thought, would be obtained 
to pay 2s. 6d., which therefore was fixed as the 
amount of composition. The non-opposing credi- 
tors had received notice of the days on which the 
a^ent of the debtors was prepared to pay tho 
dividends, but they had preferred to wait nntil 
all the instalments were due. Consequently, they 
really ran the risk of the debtors being nnable 
to pay, owing to subsequent losses. Such credi- 
tors, therefore, were not entitled to any conside- 
ration, whilst the general body of creditors woold 
receive more than the assets justified in the first 
instance. The most important question was, 
however, as to the alleged irregularity. There was 
nothing in the Act which said that a second peti- 
tion should not be presented if the debtors failed 
to pay the composition under the first. If there 
were, a debtor who agreed to pay a composition 
larger than his means allowed would be in a worse 
position than a debtor who paid the smallest 
amount which the creditors could be induced to 
accept. The compuunding debtor, unable to pay 
bis composition, could get no relief, although 
fresh debts had accrued — his estate would bo 
liable to be swept away by the most diligent 
creditor. Ho would be at the mercy of his old 
and his new creditors, inasmuch as, by iailnre 
to pay the instalments, the debts revived : 
{Slater v. Jones; Capes v. Ball; Edwards v. 
Coombe ; Re Uailon.) It was said that tho 
proper oonrse to pursue was by passing a 
resolution to reduce the amount of the composi- 
tion (Re Glover, ex parte The RadcUffe Invest- 
ment Co.), but that was only one course open to 
the debtor, and there was nothing in the Act to 
prohibit the filing of a distinct petition which 
would have the same effect. Then what were the 
rights of creditors where the provisions of a oom- 
po.-ition were not carried out ? They must apply 
to the court and satisfy it that the debtors coald 
pay, and the court would then enforce payment ; 
or they might adjudicate the debtors bankrupt. 
Here the creditors had agreed to that which was 
equivalent to bankruptcy — liquidation and com- 
position. If bankruptcy wore open to them, why 
should they be precluded from adopting liqnido- 
tion ? But, further, looking to tho history of the 
bankruptcy law, it was expressly enacted by the 
Act of 1819 (s. 220) that creditors might annnl 
a previous composition. There was nothing to 
prohibit this in subsequent Acts, and here tha 
creditors had done that which was equivalent to 
annulling theprevious resolution— they had passed 
another inconsistent with it. The former, there- 
fore, fell through ; the latter alone was valid. 
Being the expressed intention of the majority of 
the creditors, it was entitled to registration. 

The Registrar, without calling upon tho 
representatives of the opposing creditors, said 
that his opinion was that the resolntion was 
inequitable, and that the second petition waa 
illegal. In the first place, it was inequitable 
because all the creditors were entitled to come in 
and get what they could under the first composi- 
tion ; secondly, the proceeding was illegal : there 
cannot be a second petition including debts which 
have been the subject of a first petition. Tho 
creditors had a right to say they would not take 
the 6d., and that they preferred that the debtors 
shonld go into bankruptcy. The creditors haid a 
perfect right to object, and he refused to register. 

Solicitor forthedabtan, WHiimmA, Ontmg, 

)igitized by 


Nov. 7, 1874.] 



Friday, Oct. 16. 
(Before W. T. 3. Daniel, Q. C, Judge.) 
Re H. H. Nathan. 
Liquidation — EnglUh and foreign creditors- 

His HoNOTTB said that thia was a case in which 
ibe debtor oairied on business in Bradford, and 
at Hamburg, under a different name. The same 
indiTidnal was really the man who carried on 
basinsaa at both pUuses. There were assets and 
creditors at Hamburg, and aecoiding to the German 
law the oreditora in Germany who appeared np 
the books of the firm as existing at HamboJ-g, 
were entitled to priority over all other creditors, 
and if there were sufficient assets at Hamburg, 
the German creditors were entitled to 20s. in the 
pound. There were also a large number of Eng. 
ueb orediturs mho irould not be allowed, according 
to the German law, to participate in the German 
assets, and as he (the judge) nnderstood it, all 
the oreditora in this case — those who were recog. 
nised by the German law as having priority — had 
attempted to prove in the liquidation for the whole 
of their debts, so that as the proofs stood, if the 
tmatee were now to declare adividendin respect of 
- all the debts, the proofs of which were on the file, 
ineloding (if he might use the expression) those 
of the preferential German creditors, those 
Qerman creditors would have an advantage over 
the English creditors, and what the trustee (Mr. 
Slaokbnm) wanted from the court was his in- 
atraetion — ho being pr^uwed to declare a divi- 
dend — how that dividend is to be declared. Mr. 
Gardiner (who appeared for the trustee) bad re- 
fasred him to the oase Ba parte WiUon, re 
Dmtglae (L. Bep. 7 Ch. App. 490 ; 26 L. T. 
Bep. N. S. 489). In that case the amount 
that had been received in foreign asaets had been 
ascertained, but is this oaae it had not been ascer- 
tained. In the case quoted the facts were that 
Hi. Douglas carried on buainesa in Kngland under 
the firm of Donglas and Co., and in Braxil under 
the firm of Donglas, Latham, and Co., but really 
Douglas was the only person interested in both. 
Mr. Donglas in England executed a creditor's 
deed under the Act of 1861. A certitin Mr. Wilson 
lield some bills which had been drawn by the 
Brazilian house upon and accepted by the English 
house. Donglas became bankrupt at Brazil, and 
by the Brasilian law, as by the German, the 
Braailian creditors would divide amongst them- 
selves the Btttzilian estate. Wilson, ae the holder . 
of bills drawn by Douglas, was held entitled to 
prove in Brazil against the Brazilian estate, and 
receive a certain amount in respect of those 
bills. Having received those amonnts, he claimed 
to be allowed to . prove under the creditor's 
deed for the whole amount of his debt, and 
the Liverpool County Court judge allowed the 
proof. On appeal to the Leeds jnatices they held 
that the order was wrong in this respeot— that 
having received a certain amount in respect of 
the biBs, which amount in England was regarded 
as the whole of the debt, he could not receive a 
dividend out of the English assets without he 
aooonnted for the dividend received in Brazil. 
^niat seemed the point here, with the exception 
that the estate in Germany, was not administered. 
'What he should advise the trustee to do was to 
declare an equal dividend, but with regard to the 
German creditors, of whom be suspected the 
trustee had a list 

Qardiner. — Yes, we bari a list, inolading those 
proved in Germany. 

His HONOUB said that in that oase there was 
no difflonlty. He should advise the trustee to 
deolare an equal dividend ; hut with reference to 
those creditors admitted to be entitled to parti- 
cipate in the Hamburg estate, the dividend 
should be retained until it was ascertained what 
proportion they had received. It might be neces- 
sary to re-arrange the accounts hereafter between 
the English and German creditors, but that was a 
simple matter for an aooonntant. 

Qardiner observed that when the German 
dividend was ascertained, that matter oould be 
easily adjusted. 

His HoNOUB.— Then you shonld at present 
deolare an equal dividend, but as to the German 
creditors it should not be paid until the creditors 
show what they have teoeived from the German. 

Friday, Oct. 9. 
(Before B. A. Fishkb, Esq., Judge.) 
Re JosKPH BuMroB]}. 
Sanlcrupicy — Examination of hankntpl — Pro- 
ceedingi againet debtor wider Debtors' Act 
pending — Answers tending to criminate — Pro- 
seoition of bankrapt. 
Carter, instructed by Ward, appeared for the 
trustee, Mr. J. S. Pitt ; Norris, instructed by J. B. 
WiUiami, appealed for the debtor. 

Carter said he appeared in that case upon an 
objection taken to the ordinary and usual juris- 
diction of the bankruptcy court, to examine a 
bankrupt, or person in the position of a bankrupt, 
in reference to his affairs and estate, and he 
might say that the objection was rather prema- 
ture, inasmuch as the debtor having been sum- 
moned before the Begistrar for examination, 
objection was taken to his (Carter) putting any 
question at all. The main objection was that the 
bankrupt was being proceeded against under 
certain clauses of the Debtors' Act 1869, that the 
proceedings wore still pending, and that the 
answers given to questions put to him, might tend 
to criminate himself. 

His HoNOOB : Am I to understand that the ob- 
jection was taken in limine ? 

Norris replied that the objection did not proceed 
from him personally, but from the solicitor then 
instructing him. There were two or three cases 
reported in Deacon and Chitty, and, having regard 
to the ruling in those, he was afraid that he could 
offer no valid objection to the bankrupt being 
examined, but in common justice to him he would 
aek that his Honour would allow his examination 
to stand adjourned until after his trial, which 
took place at the ensuing quarter session. 

His HoNODB apprehended that the objection 
was that the trustee was seeking evidence by the 
examination of the bankrupt with which to sup- 
port the indictment. 

JTorris replied that that was so. The bankrupt 
was ordered to be prosecuted by Mr. Lloyd, was 
ake n before the magistrates, and by them com- 
mitted to take his trial. The depositions were 
now found to be of an unsatisfactory character, 
and it was with a view to strengthen them that 
the examination was sought. 

His HoNouB inquired whether there was any 
case in point 

Carter replied that in the oase re Heath, reported 
in Deaoon and Chitty, Sir John Cross held that a 
bankrupt was bound to diaolose his property 
though criminal proceedings were pending 
against him. 

His HoNOUB asked whether it was with the 
object of aiding the prosecution that the examina- 
tion was sought. 

Carter replied that his answer to that must be 
that they had a sufficient oase before the magis- 
trates to induce them to commit the bankrupt for 

His HoNOUB remarked that the case which had 
been cited was some authority, but on reading the 
96th section one would say that it did not oontem- 
plate criminal proceedings pending. Assuming 
that he granted the application, would it not be in 
the power of the judge trying the prisoner to say 
that the examination was taken after criminal pro- 
ceedings were instituted, and at a time when it 
ought not to have been taken, and that therefore 
he would reject it P 

Norris remarked that his Honour had power to 
adjourn the oase. Suppose, for the sake of argu- 
ment, that his Honour made the order that the 
debtor should be sworn and examined, he had 
simply to advise him not to answer the questions 
put to him. There was no physical power which 
could compel him to open his ups or to sign his 
examination, and the effect of that wonld be that 
the trustee wonld have to come before the court 
on affidavit, and with three days' notioe, and 
move that he be committed for contempt. 

His HoNOCB inquired whether that was all put 
by way of terrorism. 

Norris. — Not at all; but the trustee cannot 
compel him to answer. 

Carter. — It means this, your Honour — if I can 
act legally I will, but it not, I will take another 

Hia HoNOUB remarked that he might say it was 
an inopportune time, and adjourn the examina- 
tion. In order not to complicate the criminal pro- 
ceedings — if the application was bona fide, and 
not with the intention of eking out the case — had 
he not better act npon that, and allow the criminal 
proceedings to take their course? The time 
seemed to him inopportune, and if he had the 
power he shonld adjourn the examination until 
after the criminal proceedings. 

Norris observed that the 71st section pfave his 
Honour ample power to adjourn the examination. 

After some further argument, his Honodb said 
he would adjourn the examination. 

Carter said he proposed to ask the bankrupt 
some questions with regard to a certain proof. 

Hia HoNoUB observed that that was another 
matter, and, after some discussion, the bankrupt 
was sworn. 

Norris — Under my advice, he wiU decline to 
answer any question. 

His HoNouB : How can he take that position t 

Norris. — I admit I do put him in an unpleasant 
position. I am driven to it. 

His HoNOUB.— If a simple question is put, and 
he refuses to answer it, see where your client is — 
down on his knees directly. 

Ultimately, npon an intimation from the court 
that the bankrupt might refuse to answer any 
question tending to criminate himself, Nums 
assented to hia being examined, and he was asked 
some few questions as to the whereabouts of a 
creditor named George Lane, who had proved 
against the estate for £il, but the bankrupt said 
he did not know where he was, and had not seen 
him for two months. Being asked whether he 
wonld swear that he owed him ,£41, 

Norris objected to the question, saying it was 
an attempt to impeach the proof which was on 
the file, and tended also to show that the bank- 
rupt had fraudulently allowed the proof to be put 
on the file, there being no fonndation for such a 
proof, and that was made an offence under the 
Debtora' Act. 

His HoNOUE admitted the objection, the ex- 
amination was not pursued, and an adjournment 
to the 2nd Nov., which will be subsequent to the 
trial, was taken. 


/Saturday, Oct. 17. 

(Before W. F. Woodfobdb, Esq., Judge.) 


Banhmptcy Act 1860 — Infertm ord^r to restrain 

proceedings by creditor — Alleged fraud — Costs. 
Hextall appeared on behalf of Mr. John Woolley, 
Scarsdale House, Bipley, to show oause why an 
interim order restraining him from proceeding in a 
certain suit against Mr. Disney, late of Morley 
Park Iron Works, should not be made absolute. 
He proceeded to read a lengthy affidavit made by 
Mr. WooUey, from which it appeared that person 
had a olaim of .£368, for the recovery of which ha 
threatened to take prooeedinga. To prevent this, 
Mr. Dianey offered to convey all his mterest in an 
insurance which he had some years ago effected in 
the Customs' Fund, he being formerly a Cuatoms' 
officer. On the 21at July Mr, Disney signed an 
agreement to deposit with Mr, Woolley all papers 
rdating to the insurance, and also undertook, 
when required, to execute a proper conveyance 
or transfer of all his interest in the fund to 
Mr. Woolley. The conveyance was prepared 
early in August, but when presented to Mr. 
Disney he declined to sign it, and on the 10th 
of August he filed his petition. Snoh were the 
facts, as sworn to by Mr. Woolley, and he 
(Hextali) should contend that but for the fraudu- 
lent conduct of Mr. Disney his client might have 
issued execution, and have obtained payment of 
his account. His present application was that 
the court wonld not sanction such fraud, but 
would still leave Mr. Woolley at liberty to pursue 
Mr. Disney in accordance with the 15tfa section of 
the Debtors' Aot, which says, " Where a debtor 
makes any arrangement or composition with his 
creditors under the provisions of the Bankruptcy 
Act 1869, he shall remain liable for the unpaid 
balanoe of any debt which he incurred or in- 
oreased, or whereof before the date of tiie 
arrangement or composition he obtained for- 
bearance by any fraud." The advantage which 
would have accrued to Mr. Woolley had the deed 
been signed was now beyond his reach, but he 
hoped he would atill be allowed to hare his remedy 
against Mr. Disney. 

Leech, who appeared for Messn. T. H. and 
H. W. Harrison, the trustees of the estate, said 
his friend Mr. Hextali had freely used the term 
fraud, but he should put a different complexion 
upon it, and he was glad to see that Mr. Woolley 
was present to hear what he had to aay, and that 
was that it was Mr, WooUey himself who had 
committed the fraud, and was guilty of the 
offence he charged npon another. In thia affidavit 
he Bays he had " threatened " to proceed, bnt the 
fact was that he had proceeded ; he had issued a 
writ, bnt that fact he kept in the dark, and tried 
to conceal from Mr. Disney. He instructs his 
solicitor to proceed, and then, after he has th« 
writ in his possession, he has the debtor at his 
house, in a friendly sort of way, and tries to in- 
duce him to give what, to use a mild term, would 
have been a fraudulcmt nreferenoe. Even if he 
had obtained it, in face of llr. Disney's immediate 
insolvency, the transaction would not have held 
water ; and if, on the other hand, he had issued 
execution in July, it was perfectly preposteroua 
to suppose be could have secured payment of his 
acoonnt — all he could have done would have been 
to accelerate the filing of the petition, and tbeto. 
fore he was not in the slightest degree damnified 
by whathad taken place. The course now pursued 
by Mr. WooUejr was ntterly unjustifiable and 
irregular, bnt it was in keeping with all his 
oondnot in this matter. He came to the meet< 
ing of creditors, handed in his proof of debt, 
examined the debtor, and withdrew his proof 
and himself from tiie meeting; then he eraT» 
notioe of an objection against the resolutions 
being filed, which he had to withdraw, and ho 
then served Mr. Disney with a writ. The proper 
coarse would have been for him to have gone to 
the court of equity or of Chancery to barr- 

Digitized by 




[Nov. 7, 1874. 

enforced his right, it he had one, to the security 
h« claimed, but it was not open to him to proced 
as he had done. The 28iHh rule of the Act, which 
would guide the action of the court, was perfectly 
clear. It says, *' Every creditor in respect of a 
provable debt shall, in the event of a liquidation 
by arrangement being resolved upon, be absolutely 
restrained from commencing, or continuing, or 
enforcing any proceedings whatsoever against the 
debtor or his property, notwithstanding that such 
creditor has not received notice of such general 
meeting, unless the court shall be of opinion that 
Buch creditor's rights shall have been prejudicially 
affected by the resolution, and that the estate 
■would yield a Urger dividend it administered in 
bankruptcy." His Honour would see that the 
wording of the rule was mandatory, all actions 
shall be restrained. He (Leech) need not argue 
the point further, and he was satisfied that Mr. 
Eextall had been obliged to bring the case inU) 
court against his own good judgment. 

His Honour said he had no doubt upon the 
case. It was clear to him that there had not been 
any fraud on the part of Mr. Disney, and thnt 
Mr. Woolley had not been damnided by what had 
taken place. The remedy he sought was not a 
proper one, and the restraining order would be 
made absolute. 

A discussion as to the payment of the costs 
took place, but His HoNOUU said it was always 
better for them to follow the event. Mr. Woolley 
must pay all costs. 

Lane v. Disnkt ; Hunt v. Disnet. 
Sankruptcy Act 1869— Giaim for wages— Seit-anlH 

— Contract for icort to he paid hi/ the ion. 
In these cases it appeared that when Mr. H. W. 
Harrison, the receiver of theestate, was preparing 
the debtors' acconnts he ascertained that there 
were large snms owing to men who had con 
tracted to raise ironstone and coal at so much per 
ton, and some of whom employed numerous hands 
to enable them to carry oat their contracts. Mr. 
Harrison held that these were not ordinary work- 
men in the employ of the debtor, but that they 
were contractors, benefiting largely by the ser- 
Tioes of the men they employed, and that they 
conld only rank as ordinary creditors, receiving 
whatever dividend the estate might pay. "Their 
claim to be paid in fnll was therefore rejected, 
and the present application was tor an order 
upon Messrs. T. H, and H. W. Harrison, the 
trustees of the estate, to pay the whole of these 
snms in full iis wages. 

Briggs, who appeared for the applicants, said 
he must refer his Honour to the Truck Act 
(1 & 2 Will, i, 0. 37), in which it was first laid 
down that wages must be paid in coin, and also 
to the 25th section of the same Act, which defines wages are. The oases of Bowers v. Lovekin 
and fVeaverv. Flmjd, a\BO bore strongly upon this 
case, and he should also contend that as the rules 
of the Morley Park Works stated that all the 
men employed there should be regarded as the 
servants of Mr. Disney, they were entitled to the 
wages now claimed. The ironstone getters and 
the butty colliers were not contractors, but wore 
artificers, and as such could claim the wages 
earned by themselves and by the men they cm- 

Leech, who appeared for the trustees, said the 
Truck Act had nothing to do with the present 
question, which must be governed by the Bank- 
ruptcy Acts of 1861 and 1869. He would just 
refer his Honour to the excellent work of Mr. 
Manley Smith, in which, at page 170, was a case 
directly bearing upon this, which had not been 
set aside. But the most important case was that 
of Eckersley v. Bijrom, reported in 22 L. J. 27 
Bank., which runs thus : " Coal proprietors em- 
ployed colliers to whom the work was let at so 
much per score basket, and each collier had a 
drawer attached to him. The colliers paid the 
drawers out of their earnings according to an 
arrangement between them (in which the coal 
proprietors took no part), and discharged the 
drawers as they thought fit without inter- 
ference upon the part of the proprietors, 
except that both collier and drawer might 
be discharged for transgressing the rules 
of the mine. Upon the proprietors becom- 
ing ^bankrupts, and the colliers' wages being in 
arrear, it was held that the drawers were not 
servants of the coal proprietors, so as to be en- 
titled to payment in full of their wages, there 
being no contracts between the owners of the 
colliery and the drawers." That, Mr. Leech 
said, was precisely on all fours with the present 
case. Mr. Disney could not bo sued by any of 
ironstone getters or drawers tor ho never em- 
ployed them, never paid their wages, did not even 
know what wages they earned, could not exercise 
the control of a master over them, and always 
regarded them as exclusively the servants of the 
contractors. Mr. Disney conld have employed 
his own mea to do the work, but it was customary 
and more convenient to let a pit off to a con- 
tractor, who raised the stone at his own con. 
Tenieuce. The fact that the contractor's men 

were said to be the " servants" of Mr. Disney 
was solely for the purposes of the Minos Kegula- 
tion Acts, which imperatively require such 
control to be exercised by the owner, agent, 
or manager, and it was stated on oath by Mr. 
Disnoy, and conld not bo denied, that this was 
the only control he had over them. The fact was 
beyond dispute that between the ironstone getters 
and drawers and Mr. Disney there was no privity 
of contract, and therefore his estate could not 
be made liable for wages which their employers 
owed them. 

His Honour faid it was a most important 
question, and one which had not come under 
his notice. He would carefully read the affidavits 
and consider the question, and would give his 
decision next mouth. 

Leech said perhaps he might be allowed to re- 
mark that if his Honour found, as no doubt he 
would, that the law was against the applicants, 
but would at the same time say it was a case in 
which the creditors should act generously and 
make some compensation, it might be of material 
service. The trustees were bound to take the 
legal objection, but both ho and they would be 
glad for something to be done for the men. 


Saturday, Oct. 24. 

(Before Thomas Bradshaw, Esq., Judge.) 

Re Simon ; Ex parte Levenk. 

Liquidation — Special resolution— Injunction. 
This was an application on the part of the trustee 
to make au absolute interim restraining order. 

J. E. Joel appeared for the trustee, and B. L. 
Turner for Mr. Solomon Levene. 

'The facts of the case were as follows : An 
action had been commenced by Mr. Solomon 
Levene, of London, against Aaron Simon, in the 
Lord Mayor's Court, London, to recover the sum 
of .£19 183. Through an informality in the 
defendant's plea judgment was signed, execution 
issued, and the amount realised by the sheriff. 
On an application to set aside the judgment, an 
order was made by consent that the said jndg. 
meut should be set aside on the amount of the levy 
being brought into court, to abide the event of the 
action. Subsequently the debtor (Aaron Simon) 
filed his petition under the 125th and 126th 
sections of the Bankruptcy Act 1869, and a reso- 
lution was come to at the first general meeting 
that his affairs should bo liquidated by arrange- 

Joel contended that, by the passing of the 
special resolution for liquidation, all creditors 
were absolutely restrained from proceeding 
against the estat<! of the debtor, and that although 
the money had been paid into the Lord Mayor's 
Court under the order made, that did not make 
Mr. Levene a secured creditor ; and that therefore 
the order should be made absolute. 

Turner contended that the payment was a deposit 
inmedio, being paid in to abide a particular event, 
and belonged to the party ultimately entitled ; 
and in support of his contention cited the ease of 
Ei parte Tate, re Keuworth (decided by the Lords' 
Justices) (43 L. J. 102, Bank), and said that the 
judge had no power to make the interim restrain- 
ing order absolute. 

His Honour said that the money in court was 
a deposit in medio, and Mr. Levene was in the 
position of a secured creditor, and therefore dis- 
missed the application with costs. 


Saturday, Oct. 24. 
(Before Mr. Registrar Cripps, sitting as Judge.) 
Re William Fitze. 
The Duties of a Trustee in Bankruptcy. 
F. W. Stone (Stone and Simpson), applied 
on behalf of Mr. Joshua Robert Gower, the 
receiver, for an order on Mr. William Richard 
Hnggins, the trustee of the property of the 
bankrupt, forthwith to pay him a sum of 
.£14 98. 9d., the amount of his taxed costs as 
receiver, and also to pay the costs of the applica- 

Barnard (of the firm of Barnard and Harris, 
London), appeared on behalf of the trustee 
and took a technical objection to the afiidavits 
filed in support of the application on the ground 
that they had been sworn before the solicitor 
acting in the matter. He had himself a very 
important case in the Court of Chancery, and one 
of his affidavits was refused on this very ground. 

The learned Registrar said he had always been 
of the same of same opinion as Mr. Barnard and 
had ruled so in this court, but his decision was 
appealed from and reversed. He was continually 
being told by counsel of the highest authority that 
his decision was a correct one, but until he re- 
ceived directions to the contrary he must adhere 
to the decision of the judge. 

Barnard said such a proceeding would not be 
allowed in any London court. 

His Honour knew it was not the practice in 
London, but he was bound by Mr. Lonsdale's 

Stone said the judge held that where no real 
inconvenience were felt affidavits could be sworn 
before the solicitor in the matter. He then read 
Gower's affidavit, to the effect that the trustea 
had on hand funds sufficient te pay his claims, 
and produced a letter written to Mr. John Ham- 
mond, of Tidebrook Farm, the manager of tha 
estate, by the trustee, authorising payment of 
his claim. An affidavit by Mr. Himmond was 
also read, showing that Mr. Henry J. Austen sold 
property on the estate, to the value of ^£1 14 Os. id., 
which bad been paid to a Mr. Hunt, who had a 
claim upon the crops, &c. sold. 

Stone argued on the strength of the case (Es 
parte Page, re Springall), that the receiver was 
entitled to his costs first. In the case quoted 
there were two petitions, one in liquidation and 
one in bankruptcy, and the ruling of the court 
was (1) the receiver inliquiiiation ; (2) the receiver 
in bankruptcy ; (3) the solicitor in liquidation ; 
(4) the solicitor to petitioning creditor ; (5) soli- 
citor of trustee in bankruptcy j (6) solicitor to 
petitioning creditor. 

Barnard said that no portion of the money had 
been received by the trustee ; on the contrary 
there was a deficiency. The receiver and trustee 
were officers of the court, and the receiver musb 
show before he could recover that the trustee had 
money in hand wherewith to pay. The estate 
book which he produced would show conclusively 
that there never had been a balance in hand, and 
that all the payments had been for wages and 
work done upon the farm. He read the affidavit 
which had been filed by the trustee, showing that 
the amount realised by the sale had been paid over 
to a Mr. Hunt in part satisfaction of his claim 
upon the crops. 'The trustee was sworn and 
corroborated upon oath this statement. 

His Honour said he should like to know who 
employed Mr. Austen, and to whom he had paid 
the proceeds of the sale, and whether the trustee 
had taken upon himself to pay it over to anyone 
without having the directions of the court. 

Barnard said the trustee did not give instruc- 
tions tor sale, but Mr. Hunt did himself. Mr. 
Hunt was a member of the committee of inspeo- 
tion, and to him the proceeds had been paid over. 
The case quoted by Mr. Ston^ only referred to 
where a balance was in the hands of trustee. 

Stone, in reply, said the Estate Book proved as 
clearly as possible that the trustee had money ia 
hand, and Mr. Hammond in his affidavit had said 
that had ho received directions in time he would 
have paid Mr. Gower's costs. 

His Honour said the evidence before him was 
clearly in favour of the receiver. It was beyond 
all doubt the trustee had received moneys from 
time to time. He comu-ented upon the absence of 
an affidavit by Mr. Austen or Mr. Hunt as to the 
sale, and made the order which the receiver 
asked by his notice of motion, with costs. 


(Before A. Martineac, Esq., Judge.) 

Re James Light. 

Liquidation — Registration of resolution* — Ad- 

Rhodes (from the office of Duignan,' Lewis, 
and Co., of Walsall), on behalf of James Light, 
a liquidating debtor, moved the court, by way 
of appeal, for an order reversing the decision 
of the deputy registrar" whereby he refused to 
register resolutions passed at an adjourned meet- 
ing of the debtor's creditors, on the ground that 
the sense of the first meeting, which was compo. 
tent to pass or reject resolutions, was not taken. 

Youna, barrister (instructed by Slirk), op- 
posed the motion. — It appeared that at the first 
meeting, there not being sufficient creditors pre- 
sent to pass a special resolution, the creditors 
passed a resolution merely adjourning the meeting 
for a week : and at the adjourned meeting the 
resolutions tor liquidation and appointment of a 
trustee now objected to were passed. 

KIwdes contended that the creditor having at- 
tended the meeting and withdrawn hia proof, had 
now no locus standi, and was estopped from now 
objecting, and that the deputy registrar ought not 
to have entertained the objections, as he was bound 
by the proceedings, which, in the absence of fraud 
and objections, proved themselves. The learned 
gentleman quoted several rules, and sections, and 
cases in support of his contention. [His Honour 
having overruled these objections :] He then sub. 
mittcd that the question was, whether the resolu- 
tion to adjourn was valid, because if it were, then 
the absent creditors were precluded from object- 
ing to tho resolutions, as they were bound by tncm, 
and should have attended. He referred to tho 
various sections and rules bearing upon that point, 
and relied on the cases of Ex: parte I'ooley, re 
Russell; Ex parte Ord, and others, as fully esta- 
blishing the power of the minority to pass a simple 

Hia HoNOVB said he quite agreed with what 

Digitized by 


Nov. 7, 1874.] 



tSi. Bhodee had nrged, bnt it appeared to him that 
creditors might everlastingly adjonm until they 
Iiad tired oat the dissentient oreditor, and this 
-would be an abuse the Bankmptoy Act never con- 

Rhodes replied, agreeing with his Hononr, bnt 
flaid that the Bankruptcy Act created two classes 
of oieditora — one which oonld pass special and the 
otiier ordinary resolutions ; and that only bad been 
done which they had been empowered by the Act 
to do. Bat farther, it seemed to him that the 
sbnse which his Hononr had referred to was very 
nraoh less than in the case of an only oteditor who 
dissented for the sole purpose of extorting terms 
to induce him to assent. 

His HoNouB said he should not trouble Ur. 
Toang. It was an important questioiijand although 
it had been very ably argued by Ur. Bhodes, he 
-was still of opinion that the Bankruptcy Act never 
intended to authorise ad jonmmenta, such as in the 
present case, which be tiiought had been resolved 
iipon for the purpose of obtaining a majority, and 
that if creditors did not think it worth their while 
to attend, the oreditora present had full power to 
IMSS or not to pass resolutions. He should con- 
sider the absent creditors as dissentients, although, 
for a reasonable-cause, it was but proper a meeting 
should be adjourned ; and he should dismiss the 
motion with costs. 

Bhodes then applied for aa order for a fresh first 
meeting of creditors, bnt 

His HoNOtTB held he was bound by the case of 
Sx parte Cobb to refuse the application. 

Rhodes then applied to his Honour to fix the 
amonut of deposit, as be intended to appeaL 


KTbw QntEN'a CotmsEi..— On the first day of 
Term the following gentlemen having been ap- 
pointed Queen's Counsel, were invited to take 
their seats within the Bar : Ur. Henniker, Ur. 
'Serjeant Bobinson, Ur. Talfourd Salter, Ur. 
Uorgan Howard, Ur. Ambrose, and Ur. Edwards. 

Nsw CouET IN LiNCOiiN's Inn. — The new 
ftppeal court in Lincoln's-inn was opened on 
n^sday. It contains seats for eleven judges. 
Until the Judicature Act takes effect, the Lord 
Chancellor and the Lords Justices will attend. 
The Lords Jnstioes have now no separate court. 

Ub. D. U. Aibd, of the Middle Temple, author 
of "Blackstone Economised," &c., has onderti^en 
s work that is nearly oompletod, the Civil Law of 
France to the Present Time, which combines all 
the rules of the Code Napoleon. He has appended 
explanatory notes, which show the analogy that 
«xists between the laws of France and the lead- 
ing principles of the Roman Law. 

CoiTBT OF Bankruftct, Not. 2. — ^This being 
the first day of Trinity Term, the sittings at the 
Court in Linooln's-um-fields were resumed. 
Dming the Vacation several improvements have 
been in progress, with a view to the consolidation 
under one roof of all the ooorts and offices, but 
the alterations are not yet completed. At present 
one court only is capable of being occupied, and, 
owing to the noise of the workmen in the adjoin- 
ing chambers, the business was somewhat im- 

About Laws. — When you complain of high 
fees and expensive litigation to the lawyer, he has 
a right to say, " la it your pleasure to have 
mysterious, complicated, and inmcate laws, which 
require the reading and studying of a great many 
hundred rolumea to understand, when yon might 
have a simple, well-defined code, which each indi- 
lidnal might have in his pocket, and perfectly 
understand, like the French people have at 

f resent as one of the fruits of their revolution f 
am educated to decipher those mysterious 
hieroglyphics for yon, that you may have justice ; 
it is b^ uiat I live, and it is your agents or repre- 
■entatives who maltiply the laws every year and 
increase the expense." 

CxNTBAi. CbimihaIi Coubt. — Uonday morn- 
ing, in accordance with an ancient custom on the 
first da^ of Miohaelmaa Term, a special session 
for the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court 
was held at the Sessions House in the Old Bailey 
in the presence of most of the Common Law 
Judge* tor the purpose of fixing the dates of the 
■ittings of the court for the ensuing legal year. 
The judges present were Baron Bramwell, Ur. 
Justice Blackburn, Ur. Justice Keating, Ur. Jua- 
tioe Mellor, Ur. Justice Lush, Ur. Justice Brett, 
Baron Cleasby, Ur. Justice Grove, Ur. Jnatice 
Quain, Ur. Justice Denman, Ur. Justice Archi- 
bald, Baron Pollock, and Bwon Amphlett. The 
Lord Mayor, as the Chief Commissioner of the 
Court, and Ur. Alderman Patoraon, were also 
present. Ur. Avery, the Clerk of Arraigns, an- 
nounced that the following daya had been fixed 
for the opening of the aeasiona :— Uonday, Nov. 
23; Uonday, Dec. 14; Uonday, Jan. 11, 1875; 
Uonday, Feb. 1 ; Uonday, Ilarch 1 ; Uonday, 
April 5; Uonday, May 3; Monday, June 7; 
Mitnday, July 12; Monday, Aug. 16; Monday, 

Sept. 20; and Uonday, Oct. 25. That being the 
only business to be transacted the oonrt was 
formally adjourned until Uonday, Nov. 23, the 
customary proclamation of the Usher to that effect 
concluding with the words, " Ood save the Queen 
and all Her Majesty's Judges." 

Thi Lajbt Libbbtt of St. Aibaitb QuABTra 
SiaaioNs.— The last of the quarter aeasiona for 
the liberty of St. Albans has just been held. By 
an Act passed last seasion the old Uberty of St. 
Albans was done awar with, and the oounty 
divided into two divisiona — ^the county division 
and the liberty of St. Albans division. The liberty 
of St. Albans as a jurisdiction began in the time 
of the Abbots of St. Albans, and was extended 
within the county of Hertford. In the reign of 
Henry III. a charter was pranted to the abbots 
for holding of criminal junadiction. That charter 
waa renewed again in the reu>n of Edward lY., 
and in the reign of Henry Ylu. the jurisdiction of 
the abbots waa again renewed, whereby justices 
were appointed to act on behalf of the Crown 
within the liberty of St. Albans, that liberty being 
the same boundary as the old liberty over whioh 
the abbots had authority in the county. 

BEFKBBiNa to the case of the barrister who got 
nine months with hard labour at Beading, for 
obtaining money under false pretences, the London 
correspondent of the Leeds Mercury says : — " The 
unfortonato gentiemen in question waa the aon of 
a distinguished Chancery Uaater, and he himself 
made a start at the Irish Bar from which ' a 
career ' waa expected. He was the Ufe and soul 
of his mesa on drouit. How he dropped to the 
level he eeems to have fallen to, only his immedi- 
ato relatives can tolL If I don't mistake, he was 
a member of the * Garriok ' and of other well 
established dubs in town. He is conneoted with 
one of the most respectable families in the north 
of Ireland." 

EccLKSiAsncAL CASKS. — An application will 
shorUy be made by Ur. Brooks, the Proctor for 
Ur. Uackonochie, in the case of Martin v. Mack- 
onochie, to postpone the hearing in the Court of 
Arches until the case of Roughton v. Pamell, 
from York, in which similar qnestiona arise, is 
decided by the Judicial Committee of the F^vy 
Council. It has been erroneously stated that in 
the Presbury case, Coonibe v. Edwards, for ritual- 
istic practices, Dr. Stephens^ Q.C., and Ur. B. 
Shaw were for the prosecution. Dr. Stephens, 
with Ur. Jeune and Mr. Walter Phillimore, are 
retained for the defence, and are the counsel 
engaged in the appeal Boughton v. Pamell, Dr. 
Stephens will lead the prosecution against Ur. 
Uackonochie, as in the former ease, and Mr. 
Arthur Charles and Ur. Walter Phillimore the 
defence, retained by Mr. Brooks. 

Thx Lati Beyision. — Boviaing barriatera are 
in oonfiict on a question which, measured by the 
number of persons whom it aSeote, is of consider- 
able importiuice. It relates to the construction to 
be put upon the section of the Beform Act of 1867, 
by which the lodger franchise is conferred. At a 
recent sitting of the registration court for the 
borough of Greenwich, the revising barrister, Mr. 
Philips, delivered judgment on a claim in which 
the meaning of this section waa brought direotiy 
under cxaoiination. The daimant held as tenant 
three rooms in a house wholly let out in separate 
apartments, the landlord not residing on the pre- 
mises, nor in any way retaining to himself the 
general control of the house and the outer door, 
and the tenant having claimed for these three 
rooms as for lodgings occupied by him as 
a lodger, the only question to be considered 
waa (uie value and period of occupation being 
being sufficient) whether he had or had not occu- 
pied the longings " as a lodger." The revising 
barrister, in the course of a careful judgment, ob- 
served that the word "lodger" had by a course 
of decisions extending over a series of years, ac- 
quired a precise legal meaning — that, namely, of a 
person who has by agreement with tiie owner of a 
house (his landlord) the use and enjoyment of one 
or more rooms in the house, the legal poaaeaaion 
being in the landlord. The question, then, in the 
case was, vrhether the word " lodgra" in the 4th 
section (^ the Act of 1867 (under which the claim 
was preferred), was used in its ordinary legal 
meaning, or in a new and more extended one. He 
was of opinion that it was there used in the former 
sense. The Act provides that any part of a house 
occupied as a separate dwelling and separately 
rated, shall be a dwelling house, and tiiereby 
pointa to the case of a person being entitied 
to vote as an inhabitant householder for part 
of a house. Then the same Aot inttodnoea the 
lodger franchise in contradistinction to that of 
the inhabitant honaeholder, and forming a differ- 
ent snbieot-matter of qualification ; and the only 
mode of giving effect to this distinction was to 
take the word " lodger " in its ordinary legal sense. 
In this sense the claimant was not a lodger, the 
legal poaaeaaion of the rooms being in him and not 
in his landlord. The claim waa therefore dis- 
allowed ; and without hazarding an;^ opinion on 
thia decoaion, it cannot but be noticed that the 

opposito mlinp would have had tiie effect of Tery 
vridely extending the lodger franchise, inasmnott 
aa in that ease were would aeem to be nothing to 
■prevent any tenant, at all eventa of a portion of » 
house, who, being entitied to, has omitted to 
quality himself for, the honaeholder franchiae, from 
olaimmg to be regiateted as a lodger. However, 
an opposite decision to that of Mr. Philipa baa 
lately been delivered in another of the reviaing 
courta, and it ia to be hoped that the queation may 
be finally settied by a case taken to the Court m 
Common Pleas. 


After the Lord Chancellor's reception of the Lord 
Mayor elect on Monday, the noble and learned 
lord received at breakfast the judges of the aeveral 
courta, Qneen'a Connsel, Ac. Ajnong the digni> 
tariea of the Bench and membera of tne Bar pr^ 
aent were the following : The Bight Hon. the Lord 
Chief Justice of England (Sir Alexander Cook- 
bum), the Bight Hon. the Master of the Bolls, the 
Lord Chief Justice of Vb» Court of Common Pleas, 
the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer, the Lord 
Justice Jamas, the Lord Jnatice Melliah, Vice- 
Chancellor Malina, Vioe-Chancellor Bacon, Vice- 
Chaaoelloc Hall, the Bight Hon. Sir J. Hannan, 
Baron BnunweU, Mr. Juatice Blackburn, Mr. Jus- 
tice Keating, lb. Justice Mellor, Baron Pigott, 
Mr. Justice Luah, Mr. Justice Brett, Baron 
Cleasby, Mr. Justice Orove, Mr. Justice Quain, 
Mr. Justice Denman, Mr. Juatice Archibald, Baron 
Amphlett, the Attomey-Oeneral, the Solicitor- 
Qeneral, Sir Patrick Colquhonn, Mr. Serjeant J. 
Simon, M.P., Mr. Serjeant Bobinaon, Mr. Ser- 

i'eant Parry, Mr. Serjeant Ballantyne, Mr. Wat- 
[in Williams, M.P., Mr. J. W. Huddlestone, 
M.P., Mr. George Osborne Morgan, M.P., Mr. 
Morgan Lloyd, M.P., Dr. Winslow, Mr. F. 
WiUler, Mr. H. T. Cole. Mr. H. Latham 
(Begistrar), Mr. Bichard Howell Leach, Mr. O. 
Uorley DowdeswelLMr. F. Milne, Mr. T. Hughea, 
Mr. Pearson, Mr. Higgins, Ur. Herachell, Mr. 
Philbriok. Mr. O'MaUey, Mr. Littler, Mr. Arohl. 
bald Stevens, Mr. Jacnon, Mr. Kempster, Mr. 
Teesdale, Mr. Eenyon, Mr. Ward, Mr. Farrer, 
Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Chitty, Mr. Looke, Mr. Lindlw, 
Mr. Lopes, Mr. liddell, Mr. Eddia, Mr. Fry, Vb. 
H. White, Mr. E. Eaye, Mr. Pridhoe, Mr. Swan- 
ton, Mr. Cotawold, Mr. Lnmley, Mr. Charles 
Bnaaell, Mr. Weat, Mr. Metcalfe, Ur. Lnshington, 
Mr. Anderson, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Hanniker, Mr. 
Daniels, Mr. Fooks, Mr. Joshoa Williama, Mr. 
Dickinson, Mr. Joseph Kay, Mr. Maniaty, Mr. 
Arthur Shea, Mr. Field, Mr. Bagshaw, Mr.Bovill, 
Mr. Benjamin, Mr. Forsyth, Mr. Salter, Mr. 
Hawkins, Mr. Morgan Howard, Mr. Ambrose, 
Mr. Torr, Mr. Olasse, Mr. Marten, Mr. Webster, 
Mr. Sonthgato, Mr. Gates, Mr. Chambers, Mr. 
Briatow, lu. Cotton, Mr. Kershaw, Mr. Tatham, 
Mr. Pigott, Mr. Little, Mr. Price, Mr. J. P. De 
Gex, Mr. J. D. Bochford, and many others. At 
one o'clock the Lord Chancellor proceeded to 
Westminster, escorted by a detachment of 
mounted polioe, followed by the judges according 
to rank. Pollock, B., Honyman, J., the Bight 
Hon. Sir Bobert PhiUimore, and the Queen's Ad- 
vocate were unavoidably absent from his lord- 
ship's breakfast. 

PopuLons P1.ACIB. — The "populous places" 
clause has at length found a defender. The 
Solicitor-General, addressing the Preston Licensed 
Victuallers' Association the other day, said there 
was " undoubtedly a difficulty about populous 
places, bnt that difficulty, he seemed to think, had 
Deen snccessfully overcome. " The idea of the 
Home Secretary was," he said, " to include all 
places, or make it a law that all places of the 
character or form of a district with a local board of 
health, or anything of that kind, with a well-known 
and defined boun£ayandoonaiderable population, 
should be allowed to keep their pabUc-honses o^n 
till eleven o'clock ; but there were placea which 
did not come within the d^nition, and he tried to 
le^slate for them, and the newspapers had taken 
npon themselves to laugh at the Home Secretary's 
l^ialation. He ahouldlike to seethe newspaper 
tlukt oould invent a better definition of a populous 
place." A better definition than what F Mr. Croaa 
never gave, and under the circumatancea could not 
possibly have given, any definition of the thing at 
all; and what the newspapers "laughed at, if 
any were irrev e rent enough to do so, was thia very 
fact that the Home Secretary, having introduced 
into his Aot a specific term, and having withheld 
^e necessary data for defining it, then proceeded 
to call npon the lioenaing committees to fnraish a 
definition of the indefinable. Surely it is too plain 
for argument that to oall npon any body of persona 
to aay whether a place ia " popnlona '' without in 
any way limiting their diaoretion aa to what thcv 
maydedare to be "aplaee" ia aa absurd as it 
would be to ask how much liquid it takes to fill a 
measure without saying what measure. It is quite 
poaaible, perhaps probai>le, that, with a few ecoen- 
tric exc«>tionB, the licensing committees will 
exercise their wide discretion reasonably, that they 
will neither make thdr measure too small and then 
declare it nearly fall, nor make it too large 
then dedate it nearly empty. But, it so, -^ 

Digitized by 




|[Nov. 7, 1874. 

have to thiuik them for it, and not Mr. Cross, who' 
it will then be evident, might just as well have 
left out the word "popnlons" altogether, and 
declared that, subject to the "thousand inhabi- 
tants " limit, the licensing committees should have 
power to extend the closing hour till el(!ven;when- 
erer and whereyer they pleased. — J'artj Mall 




Examination of Students of the Inns of Court, 
held at Lincoln's-inn Hall, on the 22nd, 23rd, 
24th, 26th and 27th Oct. 1874. 

The Council of Legal Education have awarded 

Tyabjeo, Abbas Shnmaoodeen, Esq., of Lin- 
coln's-inn, a certificate that he has satisfactorily 
passed an examination in the subjects above-men- 

General Examination. 

The Council of Legal Education have awarded 
to — 

Anderson, Tarborough, Esq., of the Inner 
Temple ; 

Best, James 'William, Esq., of the Inner Temple ; 

Burton, Henry, Esq., of the Middle Temple ; 

Corniah-Bowden, JFrederiok James, Esq., of the 
Middle Temple ; 

Daugars, John William Quatave Leo, Esq., of 
the Middle Temple ; 

Fearon, Daniel Robert, Esq., of Lincoln's-inn ; 

Gatty, Stephen Herbert, Esq., of the Middle 
Temple ; 

Gillow, George William, Esq., of the Middle 
Temple ; 

Gilmour, Allen, Esq., of the Middle Temple ; 

Handley, Francis Frederick, Esq., of the Middle 
Temple ; 

lanson, Charles Albert, Esq., of Lincoln's-inn ; 

Izard, William, Esq., of the Inner Temple ; 

Jollivet, Yves Pierre Antoine, Esq., of the 
Middle Temple; 

Kiseh, Henry, Esq., of the Middle Temple; 

Law, David, Esq., of the Middle Temple ; 

Lyon, Andrew, Esq., of Linooln'g-inn ; 

Marjoribanks, Edward, Esq., of the Inner 
Tem pie ; 

Percival, He.-bert, Esq., of the Inner Temple ; 

Piatt, Hugh Edword Pigott, Esq., of Linooln's- 

Prosser, Walter Byron, Esq., of the Inner 
Temple ; 

Eickards, Arthur George, Esq., of the Inner 
Temple ; 

Roberts, Arthur William, Esq., of the Inner 
Temple ; 

Silvester, Ernest Frederic, Esq., of the Inner 
Temple ; 

Sly, Richard Meares, Esq., of the Middle 
Temple ; 

Stnrgis, Julian Eussell, Esq., of tho Inner 
Temple ; 

Tamplin, Herbert Travers, Esq., of tho Middle 
Temple ; 

Walker, John Bayldon, Esq., of the Inner 
Temple : 

Waring, Arthur Thomas, Esq., of Lincoln's- 
inn ; 

Warrington, Thomas Rolls, Esq., of Lincoln's- 
inn ; 

Wasteneys, William, Esq., of the Middle 
Temple ; 

Watts, Charles Newman, Esq., of Lincoln's- inn • 

Woodruff, Cumberland Henry, Esq., of Lin- 
coin's. inn ; 

Certificates that they have satisfactorily passed a 
public examination. 

By order of the Council, 

(Signed) S. H. Walpole, 

. Chairman. 

Coancil Chamber, Lincoln's-inn, 
3l8t Oct. 1874. 


Hmt.—Ttiii Department of the Law Tikks being open to 
free discnfiiloQ on ull iirofessiounl topics, the Editor is not 
reaponstble for any opinions or statemente contained init. 

Managing Clerks' Certificates. — I am 
much disappointed that the question of managing 
clerks' salaries, started by a letter from "A 
Managing Clerk," in your issue of the 10th inst., 
has not been followed up. I am persuaded that 
if the subject were supported in a proper and able 
manner the position of managing clerks would be 
improved. Tho salaries now given and offered to 
gentlemen who have been through an expensive 
and lengthened course of legal training are 
absurdly inadequate to the onerous and responai- 

hie services required of them. A managing clerk 
is responsible for everything in the ofhce, for, as 
I have heard " a member of an eminent firm " 
observe, " the principal can do nothing wrong." 
In these days of unions why should not managing 
and future managing clerks, protect themselves 
by combination. I do not wibh to see the levelling 
system of trades' unions adopted— let talent and 
industry be rewarded by all means — but a mini- 
mum scale of salaries might be agreed upon under 
which no admitted man should engage himself. 
I know there are many and serious difficulties in 
tho way, but I leave these for other correspon- 
dents to deal with. A Country Manager. 

The Eegistkarship of the Lord Mayor's 
Court. —The Law, Parliamentary, and City 
Courts' Committee are quite as anxious as your 
correspondents profess to be that a fit and proper 
person should occupy the office of reg-strar to fill 
the vacancy occurring by the promotion of Mr. 
Brandon ; and they have not lost sight of the fact 
that no one but a professional man (and be, too, 
a solicitor) should be considered eligible for such 
office. But it was thought that as Mr. Pawley 
had devoted twenty yenra of the best part of his 
life in the service of the Corporation in the dis- 
charge of hio duties at the Lord Mayor's Court, 
it was but right in his particular case to make it 
the " exception," and grant him that promotion 
which the faithful discharge of his duties seemed 
to justify. Your correspondent (Mr. Masterman), 
is not correct in stating that he did what he could 
to frustrate the appointment of a nonprofes- 
sional gentleman ; he simply sent round the usual 
address, applying for tho appointment, and an- 
nouncing his candidature to the committee. 
Speaking for myself as an individual member of 
the Profession, I am as anxions as anyone to 
maintain our rights and privileges, and I have 
watched with much interest the indications of the 
opinions of my legal brethren as conveyed in tho 
coltimns of your very useful paper. I am only 
anxious that the proceedings of my committee 
should not be misunderstood, and that the repu- 
totion which the Corporation has always main- 
tained, i.e., that of selecting the best man for the 
office (without party or any other consideration), 
may never even be questioned. 

The Chairman of the Oomiiittee. 

Countt Committees under Licensino Acts 
— Barristers and Solicitors. — I have to ex- 
press the thanks of myself and of the solicitors of 
Kent acing with me for your aid in giving in- 
Bortion to our claims to bo heard before the 
County Licensing Committee, and the grounds 
ppon which such claim was made. The public 
will no doubt learn from your columns the result 
arrived at yesterday (27th Oct.), namely, that the 
justices, by a very large majority, reversed their 
order of last year excluding solicitors, so that 
henceforth the public will, in these licensing 
matters, have their choice of selecting their advo. 
cates as they think fit. The solicitors' memorial 
having been read, the justices (a very full as- 
sembly) intimated that they did not need to hear 
more than appeared on the memorial itself ; and it 
is to be inferred, I think, that the mere statement 
in_the memorial of the injustice of the rule of 
1873 was sufficient to satisfy them that it ought 
to be at once rescinded. Probably also the jus- 
tices may have felt that it was all the more 
graceful on their part to do so of their own 
accord directly it came to their knowledge 
that in making the rule of 1873 they had been 
led to a wholly untenable position. We never 
doubted the desire of the magistrates to do 
justice, nor their will to act independently, 
and onr confidence has not been misplaced. Ihe 
rule now made is all that is fairly needed, though 
I could, I believe, have satisfied tho magistrates 
that, to say tho least, it is extremely doubtful 
(and this is the opinion of many men at the Bar, 
as well as my own viewl whether there is, in fact, 
any jurisdiction to make any rule at all on the 
subject of audience. I am aware the clerk of the 
peace entertains a different opinion ; but he will, 
I know, forgive me if 1 do not accept his view of 
the subject as conclusive. In our memorial, 
and the accompanying letter, the solicitors 
stated that in their exclusion, in favour of the 
Bar, the public were prejudiced ; and I was parti- 
cularly requested to state to tho justices how this 
statement was founded, and this I should have 
done if they had found it necessary to bear us. 
As it is, I feel it to be right to state shortly that 
we meant this : (1) that barristers assume the right 
(which is in practice constantly exercised) of 
taking a brief (and a fee with it) and then either 
never attending to the matter at all or else 
handing the brief over to some other barrister, 
who the client never saw or heard of, and whoso 
assistance he finds to be a grievous incumbrance. 
This is no ideal impression of mine, nor any 
exaggeration ; it is an absolute fact, of daily 
occurrence, though the public individually only 
know it, when they find they have to suffer 

the consequences ; (2) although a barrister mar 
accept o fee, and although he may whollv 
neglect the duty involved in accepting it in the 
way I have stated, ho is not liable to refund the 
money paid to him, nor to be amerced in damages 
for neglect of duty. He cannot, it is troe re 
cover his fees if not paid ; but this is no disad. 
vantage to him, because as a rule hisfee ia prepaid 
Many other like anomalies and anachronums' 
which the Bar love to call their " privileges '' 
exist, and so powerful is the force of mere custom 
so great the vis inertice affecting all mankind' 
that these most extraordinary reyulations are in 
full operation almost without notice by the public 
whom they most concern. No other trades 
unionism in England ventures upon such prac- 
tices and presumptions. We have no ill-will 
towards the Bar— very far from it. Our simple 
wonder is that in their own interest they do not 
see and feel how desirable it is that they should, 
of their own mere motion and sense of right 
and reason remove or amend these strange 
practices. The giant, public opinion, may 
some day awake, after his long lethargy; and 
then the wail, "Too late!" may be heard, and 
much that is sound and sacred, much that hag 
contributed and still contributes to the life and 
liberty of the British Constitution, may be swept 
away with the fungus of decayed usages which, 
like a huge parasite, canker and dcstrov the good 
ftnit of a good tree. C. E. Gibson. 

Stamps on Buildinq Socibtt Mortgaom.— 
Referring to tho opinion given by Mr. Dowell on 
this subject in your last issue, I would draw 
attention to the fact that the words used at tho 
commencement of sect. 41 of the new act (relating 
to stamps) are "any society under this Act;" 
and by sect. 8, " Every society tho rules of which 
have been certified under the repealed Act shall bo 
deemed to be a society under this Act." Looking 
at the two sections together, would not the proper 
construction be that sect. 41 will be as applicable 
to a society certified under the old Act as to one 
incorporated under the new Act (both alike being 
according to sect. 7, " a society under this Act"), 
and that, therefore, all building society morU 
gages are now liable to stamp duty ? 

Solicitor to a Building Socxett, 

Baerister-Landownebs preparing Contet- 
ANCES to their Vendees. — In the Law Times 
of the 17th Oct. last your correspondent " E. W." 
commented on the form of conveyance adopted 
by the barrister-landowner immediately in qnes- 
tion, such form having been publi.-hed in the Law 
Times of the 10th Oct. Amongst other omissions, 
" E. \V." notices that of tho habendum. Although 
tho habendum ia convenient, especially where 
there ore several subjects of conveyance (in which 
case it enables the draftsman to give a summaiy 
of the intended effect), it ia not essential. But it 
would bo better to insert the hatiendum, and 
also the other operative parts and words to which 
"E. W." refers, for the use of them is for well 
defined purposes, and they are expressed in suc- 
cinct language. The more serious defects in 
the form wore exposed in the third of the 
resolutions of the Wolverhampton Law Society, 
published in the Law Times of the 25th July 
last. The defects appear to ne of two 
classes, namely, somo ascribable to ignorance of 
conveyancing (as those pointed out by " E. W." 
and the want of proper attestations and indorsed 
receipts), and others to design— as, for instance, 
covi uants for production of title deeds, and for 
further as-suranoe. The correspondence which 
has ensued in your columns since publication of 
the resolutions has spread over the bng vacation. 
But, at present, the name of the offender has not 
transpired, nor has it been announced that ho has 
given a promise (asked for by the Law Society) to 
desist from the breach of etiquette oomplained of. 
Under these circumstances, and as legal bnsineai 
has now been resumed, it is desirable and fair that 
attorneys should be told the name of the " Q. C, 
M.P." who has usurped their professional rights, 
and has failed to appreciate tho sources of his 
own advancement. J. F. D. 

Probate and Divorce Sittings Papers 
and Cause Lists.— Now that the offices of th» 
Probate and Divorce Court are removed so far 
west as Somerset House, it would be well for 
those having authority in such trivial matters aa 
the issue and sale of sitting papers and causa 
lists in connection with that court to consider 
their future course. Hitherto the Profession his 
purchased, at a somewhat excessive price, both 
sittings paper and cause list, but the Profession 
has not grumbled. Now it will grumble. Yester- 
day I applied to a well known stationer in Doctor's 
Commons for a divorce sittings jiaper. He could 
not supply me with one. Why i The right of 
sale appears to be vested in the messengers of 
the court (who, I presume, are paid for their ser- 
vices by the court, and have no right to th» 



3igitized by 

Google ^M 

Nov. 7, 1874.J 



monopoly), and tberefore the ttationer ooald not 
Bell the paper. So it appears that the intending 
porohaaer must go weat of Temple Bar before he 
oan akoertain how hU oaiue ia likely to stand at 
the forthoomiDg sittingB. Now I don't wish to 
complain of the prices charged hitherto by the 
mesaen^s, although for their own sakes I trust 
they will now ledace them ; bat I hope that the 
Profession will not be compelled, becaase the 
messengers of the Court of Probate and Divorce 
-wiafa to add a few shillings yearly to their income, 
to go to Somerset Hoose to parchase a printed 
pieoe of paper which they might jast as well boy 
of any law stationer in Doctor ■ Commons or 
Clumoery-lane. _^ X. 

Attobnets' Cebtificatis. — The near a^- 
I>roach of the time for renewal of Attorneys' Cer. 
tifioates to practise, and the penal severities of 
late legislative enactments render it necessary 
that your legal readers should become intimate 
'with the terms of the various Acta of Parliament 
now in force regulating the continuance of their 

Sottlifioation as practising solicitors. Permit me to 
Incidate the necessity. By the 58th section of 
the Act (33 & 31 Vict. c. 97, known as the Stamp 
Aot I87U), a dnty of £i per annum is charged 
upon all persons practising as attorneys within 
tin miles from the General Post Office, in the City 
of London, and a duty of £G per annum on such 
•8 practise in England beyond that limit, with a 
rednotion of a moiety of the duty on each certifi- 
cate taken out within three years after admission 
or enrolment. By the 22nd section of the Aot 
23 & 24 Yict, c. 127, the duty on continuing 
certificates must be paid between the lUtu 
Not. and the 15th Dec. next following, both 
days inolnsive, the certificate being dated 
the 16th Not. and the duty accepted and de- 
noted as paid on that day ; the certificate is 
aeU-registering, and the name of the holder will 
appear in the next issue of the Law List. If the 
dnty be paid subsequently to the 15th Dec, and 
on or before the 1st Jan. next following, the certi- 
ficate will bo antedated, and the payment of duty 
will be denoted by a date stamp, the certificate 
heooming operative only on that day. It also is 
aelf-registenni?, and the name of the holder will 
be published in the next year's Law List. By the 
same section it is further enacted that every certi- 
ficate to practise issued after the let Jan. shall 
bear date on the day on which it is issued, and 
■hall take effect as regards a qnoliScation to 
practice on the day on which it is stamped, pro- 
Tided that (as prescribed by sect. 21 of the same 
Act) within a month of the payment of the duty 
thereon it be produced to the registrar for entry, 
in default of which production the certificate is to 
have effect only as a qualification to practice from 
the time when it shall be prodaced, unless 
otherwise ordered by a judge. By sect. 12 
of the Act 37 A 38 Vict. o. 68, it is de- 
clared that any person acting as an attorney or 
solicitor without having in force at the time at 
which he so acts a duly stamped certificate autho- 
rising him so to do, shall be guilty of an offence 
under that Act and be liable to a penalty not 
exceeding XIO for each snch offence, recoTerable 
before a court of summary jurisdiction in the 
manner proTided by the Summary Jurisdiction 
Acts. It follows, therefore, that the duty for the 
ensuing year on oontinuing certificates must be 
paid before the 16th Dec, as otherwise a penalty 
will have been incurred for each business transac- 
tion performed subsequent to the 15th Nov. pre- 
ceding the day of payment and the actual day of 
payment, notwithstanding its having been made in 
time for the insertion of the holder's name in the 
Law List. The same penalty will likewise attach 
■honld a practitioner, the duty on whose certificate 
has been paid subsequently to the 1st Jan., fail to 
register his certificate within a month after the 
day of payment of the duty thereon, for each 
holiness transaction performed prior to the day 
o( production to the registrar, unless otherwise 
ordered by the Master of the Rolls, in the case of a 
■oUcitor.or by a judge of one of the Superior Courts 
«( Law at Westminster in the case of an attorney. 
IVxsibly tiie judges may rule that the expression 
of an intention to observe the terms and require- 
ments of the Act is tantamount to a consumma- 
tion, and temporarily legalise an attorney's 
practising pending the registration of this certifi- 
cate. Such mUng, however, will not, it is sub- 
mitted, release the practitioner from the penalties 
of ths last-named Act, should he fail to register his 
eerlificate within the limited time, or not succeed 
in obtaining a full reviTing order from a jndge. 
The holders of eontinning certificates are not, it 
would seem, entitled to a similar privilege ; there 
is nc power given by the Act to a jndge to direct 
that a certificate, the duty upon whioh shall haTe 
heen paid post the 15th of Dec., and prior to the 
2nd of Jan. nevt following, shall haTe effect upon 
and from the 16th of Not. preceding, or any sab> 
■eqnent period, and consequently to aToid the 
penaltiea of the Attorneys and Solicitors' Act 
1874, the duties on renewed certificates for the 
eniniDg year should be paid on or before tho 

15th of Dec. next. Judging from the fact that a 
magistrate has already directed one [suocess- 
falj prosecution of an uncertificated practi- 
tioner for an offence under the Aot, and 
that a magistrate's clerk has impounded a 
document prepared by an unqualified perwa ; the 
police executive appear to be intent upon availing 
themselves of the penal clause in the Aot passed 
in the last session of Parliunent, and herein- 
before referred to. EowABC Cox. 
102, Chancery-lane. 

Our correspondent is in error in stating that the 
attorneys' and solicitors' certificate duties are 
imposed by sect. 58 of the last Stamp Act. These 
are imposed by the 3rd section of that Act by 
reference to the Sohedale. Our correspondent, 
moreover, having attempted a summary of Acta of 
Parliament in regard to these duties, should have 
referred to sects. 59 to 64 of the Stamp Act in 
qnestion, by whioh, amongst other things, a 
penalty of £50 is imposed upon attorneys and 
solicitors practicing without a duly stamped cer- 
tificate. 'Too much prominence is given to the 
§ revisions of sect. 12 of tho last Attorneys' and 
olicitors' Act, imposing a penalty in certain 
cases. — Ed. Sols'. Dbpt.] 


Nonos.— We must rvnlnd our eomspondenti that this 

column is not open to que^tiona involving poinu of law 
such aft a solicitor should be cQUi«ulu-(l upon Qtieries wiU 
be exrluded wliich po beycud our limiia. 
N.B.-^None are inserted onlefts the name and addrem of the 
writers are senc, not neceasaiiiy lor pabUcaCion* but as a 
saarauW« for bona JttUs, 


1. Babbits.— In the Law Tihes for 6t1i Jane 1868, 
p. 100, there is an artiole headed, " Babbit Law/* which 
Mtatea that a very imporlant qut^stiun upon the liability 
of un owner for damai^e done by raLjbit;! has just been 
decided" in the Court of Queen's Bench. I am anable 
to tiud a report oi the case. Could any of your readers 
inform me wbere and by whom the case is repi>rt«d. 


2. Bight to Bevts.— A,, by his wiU, devised nnto 
bis trubtees a tenement, upon trutt to sell, and, after 
payment of expenses, he instrncted them to divide the 

groceeJs amongst six persons therein mentioned; and 
e appointed B. his residuary legatee. The preinittea 
were sold by auction nice mouths after the death ut the 
testator. Who is entitled to the rent accruing from 
the death of the testator to date of pnrcbaae ? There 
is no devise of tbe rents and protttaj it possible, otte 
case. Lsx. 

3. Will. — ^Testatrix directed ber executors to oon* 
Tsrtall her estate and then divide it equally amongst 
ber children, 'ibe will contains a clause, "And it is 
my wish, and I hereby direct and empower my said 
trustees, to pay tbe whole or any part of the shares 
■boTe bequeathec^ to my son at tbe same time as the 
Other sbaies are paid, or to retain the same in their 
ban-'saudpay it to h:m by instalmtoits as tbey muy 
think most to bis advantage." Testatrix died four 
years ago, and tbe executors bave not and refuae to pay 
over either iha legacy (which only amounts to J^Q) or 
any part thereof to the legntee, who is but a daily 
labourer, and asserts that be is in need of tbe mouey. 
'Would anyone inform me if Le can reooTcr bis legacy 
ttom the executors, and of any coses on tbe point ? 


4. Manobiai. Cotthts.— Perbape some of your cor- 
respondents can refer me to a treatise on manorial 
courts. I am anxious to learn to wbat extent their 
juri^diction btill ealjita and can be enforced, and ahull be 
glad of any information ou the subject, and. the manner 
of boldinic the courts may vary in differeot localities, 
hut the powers must be tbe same in all, as»uming they 
hare not been oUowed to lapse. Statute Law has made 
such haTOC with these courts that there is little juris* 
diction left to them ; but it is not all taken away, and 
there ore no doubt l^al remediea which can be sup- 
ported. E»QUIBB«. 

5. Takivg otrr CERnricATCs.— Ii it n«oeMary for an 
admitted mauling clerk to take out bis annual certi- 
ficate if be occaaionally conducts cases In the County 
Court for bis principal, the latter of course baTing 
taken out an annual certificate F Thos. H. Bisrtos. 

6. DisTUBTTiOM OP Amkts.— Wlwt odTertiMneaU 
are necessary when the same takes place within twelve 
months irom tbe decease of testator. A testator died 
in September last ; the asset* will be ascertained by 
Hsy next. It le auumed that tbe liabilities will be 
shortly known. What ateps afaould the ezecators take 
to free themselvee from nsk by distriboting tbe assets 
within twelve months of testator's decease ? 


(Q. 88.) Horns.— Finding no reply to " Pisoator'a " 
question in the Law Times of a6th Sept. last, 1 beg to 
refer him to tbe answer of the editors of the Justice of 
tbe Peace on tbe same Bobject, in that legal Journal of 
tbe aith nit, p. 6M, __ B. C. 

(Q. 101.) Lvsact T>utt ok Lboact from Stbmoh to 
8TEFH0TBEB AHO VICE VERSA. — Let me (as tbe original 
querist), say "G. Q." is quite wrong. "A. W. W." and 
** A. C. W.*^ are right, and *' £. T.," who saya all thie« 
are "wide of the mark," ia himself so. I thank him, 
however, for hia reference to sect. 11 to 16 & 17 Vict. 
c. 51f whioh I had failed to lay my ha&da on to oo&Arm 

uy own tmp p s aa ioii. In both oasea the parties arft 
strangers in blood, and aa auoh £10 per cent, would 
attach ; but tbe above aection here steps in, and enact* 
in this case nractioaUy that the dnty frt>m stepaon to 
stepmother sHall be only 1 per cent., because that is 
tbe rate for legaoiea from a son to a father, and where 
a person '*bas been married to a husband of nearer 
oonsangoinity to the testator," she is liable only to pa^ 
the same rate as her husband would have been charge- 
able with. I refer my respondents to another querj 
hereon this week. Paradox. 

— Tbe stepmother would be liable to doty at 1 per 
cent., she taking advantage of ber husband's relation- 
ablp to tbe stepaon testator. The stepeon, on the con* 
trary, would have to pay 10 per cent, as be is no rela- 
tion to bis stepmother. If, however, he married bia 
stepmother's daughter, then he would be liable to 1 per 
cent only for the reason above stated* B. L. 

— " E. F.'* appears to have placed a strange eon- 
atmction on tbe seeticm of the Sucoassion Duty Act 
referred to by him. That aection anaota (omitting 
words inapplicable to the present caae) that '* whero 
any person chargeable with dutv under tbe Legacy 
Duty Aot in respect of any legacy bequeathed to him or 
ber by a testator, dying after tbe time appointed tor 
the commencement of this Act, shall have betnmarried 
to aoy wife or husband of nearer oonsanqainity tbaa 
himself or herself to tbe testator, then the person- 
taking such legacy ahall pay in respCNCt thereof the same 
rate of duty only aa such hia or her vrife or husband 
would have been chargeable with if she or he bad t«hen 
the same." Aocordiuglya legacy from stepaon to at«p« 
mother is Hable only to such rate of duty as would have 
been pajable in case rbe legacy had been left to ber 
busbaud, testator's father, namely* £1 per oent. But 
this section in no way affects tbe rate of duty payable 
on a legacy to a son of testatrix's husSand by a former 
marriage, whioh oonsequently remains liable to the rat« 
of duty charged by the Legacy Duty Act on legacies to 
strangers in blood, namely, £10 per oent. A. C. W. 

— The oorreepondent *' £. W." seems partly mis- 
taken in his view of this question. Sect 11 of tho 
lt> & 17 Vict. o. 51, only applies to a person who muriea 
anyone of nearer consanguinity to tbe testator, &c.y 
Uian blmseir, and appliea to a caae where a stepmother 
takes from her atepson because the stepmother has 
married the stepson's father. She la only liable to paj 
£1 per ctnt. '1 be 'opposite case, however, where tM 
stepson takes from his stepmother, ia not within tbe 
above fteetion, and he, being a Btranger, in blood will 
have to pay £10 per oent B. O. 

(Q. 109.) SuccKssiOK Duty. — Absenoe from home pre- 
vented my replying to tbe query in the Law Timbs <^ 
tbe 17tb inst.,as requested by *'U. U." It does not 
appear from the queotion at what date the oonveyanoo 
I to G. H. took place, nor in what way G. U. dif'ptsed of 
I the property by his wiU. Assuming, however, that the 
purchase took place after 19th May 1863. and, fur tbe 
sake of explanation, that Q. H. deviled the property to 
' Z. for life, then I take it that tbe succenpiou duty ]iay- 
abla by rkason of tbe death of C. i). would be usessud 
under tbe will of G. H., acoordiing to tbe relation.<>hip 
of Z. to him. The okim for du'ynndtr the will of 
A. B., in my opinion, came to an end by tbe death of 
£. F. i but, a<iuiitting such not to have been tUu case, 
bad O. H. survived C. D. the death of G. U. would 
seem to make a difference, for Z. does not come within 
the lerojs of the 15th section of tbe Act {i^ & 17 Yict, 
0. 51), as the taking by him of the propei ty conf ere a 
new buccesbion, that section only pruviding for cuAeS 
where no new succession arises. M.T, Utuisuu, in hia 
Acts relating to Probate Legacy and Sucoeubion Duties 
('i^nd edit,p.33tl. in a note to sect. 15), says : '* Where an 
expectant succesnion in real property ia settled or 
devolves so sa to create a new aucceSbion, only one duty 
is in any case payable, and that by tbe sucrtfebur who 
first becomes enutlkd in possession, and upon tbe value 
of bis uwn interest only, and at tbe rate to wh.cb bd 
himself in liable accoruing to sect. 10." It is not 
unlikely that the authorities will tttill claim duty unaer 
the will of A. B., resting their claim upon the recent 
decision of The Sohcitor-Qmcral v. The Latr Rcvcmionar]/ 
InUrest Socuty. I think, however, snch claim, if made. 
may be resisted with every prospect of success. If 
**Q. U." wou.dlike to see some MS. of mine bearing 
np<^<n tbe subject, I shall be happy to lend them to bim, 
if be Mill sekd bia name and address to the Law Tixes 
office addressed to me. 

Tab Wrztrb or thb Abticlb or tbb 
4ru Jaji. 1873. 

— " A. W. W." appears to have overlooked ths f*ct 
that the portion which he quotes of the 15th section of 
tbe Succession Duty Act relates only to reversionary 
]»operty expectant on death vested, Ac., at Uie time 
appointed lor the commencement of the Act. It is to 
tbe second branch of the same aection that we must 
look lor an answer to this question. Between tbe two 
branches there is mA important diathiotion, tbe latter 
containing an exception (not contabied in tbe former) 
axprea*ed in the worda ** or by any other title not con- 
femog a new snoceeaion." It la clear that, if tho 
aheose of the remainderman had some into poesession 
at 1 he death of the tenant for life, he would have been 
liable only to the dnty to which ths remainderman 
would have been liable bad he aoooesded. But by ths 
devise it appears to me that he has created a " new 
succession," which has been said to arise ** whenever 
an alienation ia made which ia to take effect on tbs 
termination of adifferent or anewlife : (See ittont«y- 
6tii«ral V. Lord Euttac* C^cU, 23 L. T. Bep. N. H. 20.) 
This being so, it would appear that tbe oommi^sioners. 
if tbey cannot claim two antiea, can at least claim duty 
on either of tlie successions at their option. 

A. C. W. 

(Q. Its.) Vbvdobs Asn PtmcHASERs Act 197A— The 
Aot veats no estate in the administratrix, but only 
(sect. 4} enables her to convey. When a married 
woman conveys in exercise of a power, and not by foroo 
of any estate vested in her, 1 take It she need not 
acknowledge tbe deed. The ssetion does not tnterfers 
with tbe descent of the legal eatats to tbe beirat-law. 
■mhougb the exerotos of tbe power by the legal parsuttal 
repnaantative has tbe effect of divesting the estasa. 
By sect. 5 a bare legal estate in fee simpie is aolai* 
to vast in tbs psrsonai representative, who, if a * 

Digitized by 




l_Nov. 7, 1874. 

woman, may, under sect. 6, convey without acknow- 
ledging the deed. In neither caae (sect. 4 and 5) haa 
the woman any beneficial interest, eo that there would 
seem to be no reason why an acknowledgment should 
not be neceEsary in one, and yet be necessary in the 
other. The point is not, however, entirely free from 
doubt, BO that if the property will bear the expense, I 
should certainly advise an acknowledgment in order to 
be on the Bafe aide. E. L. 

(Q. 115.) Intestacy— Distribution.— The ubcUs and 
aunts being of equal degree of consanguinity, would be 
entitled equally to to personalty, R. L. 

— According to 22 i 23 Car. 2, c. 10, and 1 Jac. 2 
c. 17, if there be neither issue, father, brother, sister, 
nor mother, of the intestate living, the personal estate 
will be divided in equal shares amongst the next of kin. 
"No preference is given in the distribution of an intes- 
tate's personality to males over females. Therefore, 
Ihore being no other relations, the property must be 
divided amongst such persons as are bis next of bin, 
in erfual shares, i.e., to the uncles and aunts equally. 
See Williams on Personal Property. E. J. 

— By sect. 7 of the statute, A.'slestate will be divided 
equally among the uncles aud aunts. Buissieres v, Albert, 
2 Caa. temp., sec. 51. 

— The personal estate must be divided equally 
between the uncles and aunts. In the distribution of 
an intestate's personal estate no preference is given to 
males over females, nor does seniority in age obtain 
any priority. " C. B. A." might consult with advtin- 
tage the chapter in Williams's Personal Property 
allotted to Intestacy. A. C. W. 

— In answer to *'C. B. A.,*' the uncles and aunts 
take equally ; any of them entitled to administer. The 
eldest ancle on father's side would inherit real estate 
aJone. See Hudson's Legacy and Succession Duties. 



No acknowledgment is necessary. If the term were 
bequeathed to the daughters for their separate use, they 
can assign to the purchaser without their husbanda' 
concurrence. If, however, the bequest were made 
without any reference to separate use, the husbands 
oould assign without their wives' concurrence. E. L. 

— No. That statute does not apply. The husbands 
ftre the ^larties to assign, though it is as well that 
the mamed women should join. See 1 Rod. Husband 
and Wife, 173. J. M. 

— Undoubtedly the deeds by which the married 
daughters assign their shares must be acknowledged 
tinder Ski Will. 4, c. 74 (see sects. 77 and 79), unless, 
indeed, the property was devised to them for their 
separate nse, in which case they might assign by deed 
nnackuowledged: (See Taylor v. Mead-s. 11 Jur. N. S., 
166.) A. C. W. 

— If "Westward Ho "had read Williams on Real 
Property he would have seen that it is only necessary 
for married women to acknowledge conveyances of real 
estate, and not assignments of leaaeholds, which 
perbajts he may know is personalty. 

AsTiCLBD Clerk. 

(Q. 118.) Execution of DeedbyPowekof Attoenet. 
—If a purchaser takes a conveyance executed by power 
of attorney, the attorney should also execute a decla- 
ration of trust that he will stand possessed of the pur- 
chase money in trust for the purchaser until it is 
proved that the vendor was alive at the time of the exe- 
cution of the deed, or, if dead, until the estate be duly 
onveyed to the purchaser. A. W. W. 

(Q. 120.) Conveyance bt TRrsxEE of Power to 
Invest. — Lend on mortgage only : (Will. Pors. P. iv. 1.) 

(Q. 121.) Lfabk— Building Covenants.— I think it 
clear that the term merged in the fee upon B.'s pur- 
chase, and that the words quoted, *' subject, kc." could 
not prevent it: (Will. Real P. 399; Sug. V. & P. 
c. 9). If the term had been assigned to a trustee to 
attend the inheritance, B. might have enforced the 
buildiiig coveuimt against A. or his personal represeu- 
tativBft. not against his assignees .- (Co. Litt. 385 ; 5 Rep. 
ICa ; Maijor oj Conghton v. PatHson, 10 East. ; 129.) But, 
418 the term is merged, A. 'a liability, which was only co- 
extoi^sive with the duration of the term, is at an end. 
See also Addison on Contracts, c. 23: Coote Land. &, 
Ten. 309. j. m. 

(9. 122.) Devise— Di3claimer,—A devisee can dis- 
claim a freehold estate by deed: {To>n\fion v. TukcH, 
3. B. & Aid. 36; Kich^hon j. WordswoHh, 2 Sw. :W5; 
£egbie v. Crook, 2 So. 128) . J. M. 

(Q. 124..) Will. — A. can certainly insist on security 
being given out of the testator's estate for payment of 
ber annuity: {Hanninqv. StvU\ 3 P. Wm. 336; Ferrand 
V. Prmtic*. Ambl. 273; Hill v. RatUy, 2 J. & H. 631.) 
She should take care that her right ia not endangered 
by laches. J, M. 


The following is a enmmary of the paper read by 
Mr. Ejlea, at the meetiog of the Incorporated 
Xaw Society, at Leeds, on the 21st Oct. 

The object of the paper was to suggest a plan 
for enabling parcha.sers to record results of 
examination of land titles, with the view of ren- 
dering re-examinations of the same title less fre- 

The proposal was somewhat as follows:— (1) 
Purchasers might be authorised to file with the 
clerk of the peace for the connty, city, or borough, 
or his deputy (or in Middlesex and Yorkshire with 
the deputy registrar) (n) a copy of the conditions 
of sale, and {h) a consent by their convejanciEg 

oonnael and solicitor to act in the matter as public 
examiners, or in casea below a certain value a 
consent by the solicitor alone so to act. (2) The 
examination would proceed in the usual way. (.3) 
Within a short time (to be prescribed) after exe- 
cution of the deed of conveyance purchasers who 
had filed the beforementionod papers might be 
authorized to file (c) a certificate of examination 
of title ; and (d) a copy of the purchase deed ; 
and this would complete the record. The certifi- 
cate would be signed by the conveyancing counsel, 
or in cases below a certain value by the solicitor. 
The certificate, when signed by eonnsol, might 
certify that an abstract of title had been perused 
b^ counsel, and the deed of conveyance settled by 
him. That a good title, subject to and in accord- 
ance with the conditions of sale had been shown 
in the conveying parties. That the solicitor had 
certified to counsel that the originals of all the 
documents set forth in the abstract, or such other 
evidence of their contents as counsel was satisfied 
with, and all other evidence necessary, in the 
opinion of counsel, to verify the abstract had been 
produced, and that the abstract correctly stated 
all the material contents of every docnment ; and 
that all requisitions, inquiries, and searches di- 
rected by counsel had been made and satisfied. 
(4) The certificate, in cases below a certain value, 
if signed by the solicitor alone, might be to a 
somewhat similar efi'ect with necessary variations. 
(.5) It might be provided that the papers to be thus 
lodged should be open only to the inspection of 
the owner and persons authorised by him. (6.) It 
might be provided that when an owner, who had 
so recorded the examination made on his purchase, 
subsequently sold, the purchase from him should, 
in the absence of stipulation to the contrary, bear 
the reasonable costs of the vendor as well as his 
own in respect of any re-examination which he 
might undertake of the title prior to the certifi- 
cate, and trustees, whether vendors or purchasers, 
might be authorised to buy without examination of 
the anterior title, and to sell without permitting 
such an examination. It might also be provided that 
no soliuitor for a purchaser should bo responsible 
to his client for not examining the vendor's title 
prior to such a recorded examination, unless ex- 
pressly required by hia client to undertake such 

The 33rd half-yearly general meeting of the 
members of this association was held concur- 
rently with the general meeting of the Incor- 
porated Law Society, in the Philosophical Hall, 
at Leeds, on Thursday, the 22nd nit., Mr. 
Frederick Thomas Veley, of Chelmsford, Deputy- 
chairman of the Board of Directors, presiding. 
The attendance of members of the Profession 
was very numerous. 

The secretary having read the notice of meet- 
ing, and the previous minutes, the report, as 
follows, printed copies of which were freely 
circulated in the room, was taken as read : 

The board of directors have much pleasure 
in presenting this their thirty-third half-yearly 
report of the progress and operations of the 

During the past half year, 117 new members 
were admitted to the association, making with 
those elected during the previous half-year, a total 
accession of 181 new members within the year. 
The association has now an aggregate number of 
2373 members enrolled, of whom 82S are life 
members, and 1545 annual. Twenty-nine life 
members are also annual subscribers. The board 
have had the pleasure of acknowledging, during 
the halt-year, the valuable services of several 
members of the association, who, by their oflTorts 
in canvassing, materially assisted in thus adding 
to the number of the society's supporters. 

The usual audited abstract of the accounts is 
appended, from which it will be aeen that the 
receipts during the past half-year amounted to 
i!1974 Os. lid., which added to those of the pre- 
vious half-year, make a total of .£3335 19a. 3d. for 
the whole year. 

Included in the receipts of the past half-year, is 
a donation of ^6100 from the executors of Miss 
Mary Gray Ratray, of London, deceased, in respect 
of which the board, as empowered by the 4th 
rule, have admitted as an honorary life member, 
Mr. Edwin Bedford, solicitor, of Haberdashers' 
Hall, London, one of the executors acting under 
probate of her will. The Directors have the 
pleasure also of reporting a donation of ^625 
(received since the account was closed) from Mr. 
James Anstey Wild, solicitor, of Ironmonger.lane, 
London, a life member of the association. 

The anniversary festival of the association took 
place in .Tune last, nnder the presidency of Lord 
Selbome, supported by many members of both 
branches of the profession, the result being a 
net addition of X538 4a. 6d. to the funds of the 

During the past half-year the Board of Direc- 
tors have paid in grants to one necessitous mem- 
ber, and to the necessitous families of ten deceased 
members, the sum of £550 ; and during the same 

period ^£410 in relieving the neceasitona families 
of thirty-fonr deceased solicitors, who were not 
members of the association. 'These amountB, 
together with the grants made during the previona 
half-year, make a total expended within the past 
year in assisting one member, and the necesaitouB 
families of thirteen deceased members, of JE720. 
and a total of £645 in relieving the families of 
fifty-six deceased Solicitors who were not mem- 
bers ; making in the whole £1365 granted in 
relief during the year. 

Since their previous report the board have 
invested a further sum of £621 16a. Cd. in the pur- 
chase of India four per cents., increasing the 
total funded capital of the Association to 
^29,406 lOs. lid. stock ; consisting of je6583 3s. 3d. 
Three per Cent. Consols; je7804 17s. 8d. India 
Five per Cents ; ^610,800. India Four per Cents ; 
£3907 London and North-Western Railway Four 
per Cent. Perpetual Debenture Stock; £250 
London and St. Katharine Dock Four per Cent. 
Debenture Stock ; and £62 lOs. Three per Cent. 
Reduced Annuities ; producing together annn&I 
dividends amounting to £1176. 

A balance of £213 lis. Id. remained to the 
credit of the Association with the Union Bank of 
London, on the 31st of August, and a sum of £15 
was in the Secretary's hands. 

The Directors and Auditors, whose period of 
office will terminate at this General Meeting, are 
eligible and willing to continue their services if 

The Board have had the pleasnrs of convening 
this General Meeting to take place at Leeds, in 
which town the Association last met in 1864, aad 
they entertain the hope that this renewal of the 
Society's visit may result in a large increase to 
the number of its friends and supporters among 
the profession there. 

(Signed on behalf of the Board.) 

Park Nelson, Chairman. 
The Chairman, in moving the adoption of the 
report and balance sheet, said that ho wished to 
see more of the Leeds solicitors members of the 
association. According to the law list there were 
about 110 at Leeds, only twenty of whom were 
members. He had been conversing lately with 
a solicitor here about the association, and he 
feared that there was a prejudice against the 
annual dinners, upon which it was thought too 
much was expended. Now, it was true they had 
a public dinner once a year, but every member 
attending it had to pay a guinea for the privilege 
of doing so ; not even the directors being free. 
The annual dinners were a good advertisement, 
and financially were a success ; the result of the 
last, as appeared in the report, being a net addi- 
tion of £538 4s. 6d. to the funds, and the expenses 
being only £16 Is. 6d. ; besides a considerable in- 
crease to the number of annual subscribers. 
There was another point of objection — the associa- 
tion was glad to receive cases for relief, but one 
had been sent up from Leeds within the last year 
or two of a distressed solicitor there, to whom the 
association could not grant relief because of his 
not being a member ; the rules allowing a grant 
of relief only to members or their widows and 
families, or to the widows and families of de- 
ceased non-members. At the last meeting of 
the Board, however, a donation of £.50 was granted 
to the widow of a Leeds solicitor who had been a 
member, which he hoped would show the members 
of the Profession at Leeds the utility of becoming 
members. There was another instance he would 
like to bring under their notice as an example of 
the advantages to be derived from joining this 
association. It was that of the daughters of a 
gentleman of high standing in the Profession, 
whom he had himself known, and who had held 
numerous offices, and was much respected. He 
died, leaving his daughters, rather advanced in 
years, between five and ten thousand pounds ; 
their only brother, a member of this association, 
succeeded to the business, and Boon managed to 
squander both his own and their money, leaving 
them, at his death, utterly destitute. This asso- 
ciation, the moment the case was brought before 
it, granted to each of the ladies £50. The asso- 
ciation felt extremely obliged to the Council of the 
Incorporated Law Society for allowing it to hold 
its meeting with theirs, and deeply indebted to 
Mr. Bircham, the president, who had kindly occu- 
pied a portion of his vacation in obtaining a very 
long list of new subscribers. He moved the adop- 
tion and circulation of the Report and Balance 
Sheet in the usual way. 

Mr. R. A. Payne (of Liverpool) had very great 
pleasure in seconding that resolution. He thought 
that the fact of there appearing on the report 
that they had expended £1300 in relief in one 
year to neceaaitons widows and children spoke 
volumes for a society so young aa this, and he 
had no doubt that if some kind friend in Leeds 
would go among the eighty-seven soUcitors who 
were not subscribers, they would be received with 
the greatest kindness, and the number might be 
reduced by one-half. 

A discussion of some length then took place as 
to the propriety of raising a fund for the ednca- 

Jigitized by 


Nov. 7, 1874.J 



tion of the bods and danghtera of those who had 
daima on the asaociation ; bat the general 
opinion seemed to be in favour of incieasing the 
^neral fnnds of the association, so that larfper 
p«nt8 might be given, and that the education of 
children shonld be left to parents and ^ardians. 

The report was then nnanimonsly adopted. 

The directors and auditors were thanked for 
their services during the past year, and re-elected 
for the ensuing one. 

Mr. Burton (of London) moved a resolution 
" That it is the opinion of this meeting that it is 
desirable that in any future anniversaries, the 
invitations should be confined to solicitors," it 
being an undignified course, he considered, for 
this association to isgne invitations to member.') 
of the Bar and other gentlemen, and to expect 
them to contribute on such an occasion to the 
funds ; the barristers having established a similar 
society for themselves, to which they did not ask 
the solicitors to contribute. The resolution, after 
some conversation, was seconded, and carried. 

Mr. Barton said there was'another matter upon 
which he shonld like to take the sense of the 
meeting, namely, as to the question of an amalga- 
mation Ibetween this association and the other 
society of similar objects which confined its opera- 
tions to the metropolis. Ho thought there could 
be very little question that the expenses of the two 
societies in going over some portion of the same 
ground must be greater than if they were 
united, and althouRh a proposition of the kind 
had fallen through on a former occasion, he 
thought it would be well if the directors of 
this association wore requested to confer again 
"""'. *?".' Law Association, in London, upon the 
possibility of an amalgamation between the two 
societies, and he was prepared to move a resolu- 
tion to that effect. It being considered, however, 
desirable that Sir. Burton shonld first bring the 
matter before the Board of Directors, and then 
let it come before some future general meeting in 
an official shape, that gentleman undertook to 

00 80. 

A vote of thanks to the chairman, for presiding, 
terminated the proceedings of the meeting. 

The annual meeting of this sociotv was held at 
Clement' s-inn Hall, on Wednesday the 4th Nov. 
1874, Mr. H. H. Crawford in the chair. The 
officers of the society read their reports, which 
showed the society to bo in a most flourishing 
condition, both financially and otherwise, and new 
officers for the forthcoming session, 1874-5, were 

The tenth annual inaugural meeting will be 
held at Clement's-inn Hall, on Wednesday even- 
ing next, the llt.h inst., at eight p.m.. Professor 
Leone Levi, F.S.S., &c., in the chair, who will 
deliver an address. H. T. Round, Esq., B.A., 
LL.B.,will read a paper on "The Scientific Study 
of the Law,'* to be followed by a discussion, in 
which all present are invited to take part. "The 
Hon. Sec. of the society, Mr. F. J. Baker, Rugby 
Chambers, St. Jamoa's-street, will be happy to 
forward tickets of admission to any gentleman 
on application. 

The inaugural address in connection with this 
society was delivered on Friday evening by the 
president, Mr. T. Cousins (clerk to the justices), 
at the Masonic Hall, Portsmouth. Several mem- 
bers of the Profession were present. Mr. Serjeant 
Cox, the learned recorder of the borough, has 
accepted the honorary presidency of the society. 

At a meeting of this sooict.v, held on the 3rd 
Xov. inst., at the Lecture 'l{oom, 21, Church- 
»treet, presided over by Mr. Henry Ashington, 
the question under disouasion was — " Is a hus. 
band who does not allow his wife, living with him, 
safficiest for her support, liable for necessaries 
Bnpplied to her from a tradesman, after express 
prohibitory notice by the husband f " Messrs. 
"■ C. Anty and George Barras supported the 
affirmative, and Messrs. Wm. L. Shea and A. M. 
Wilson the negative side. The question was de- 
cided in the negative by a majority of five. 

Th« first ordinary meeting of this society for the 
wssion 1871—1875 was held in the Law Library, 
Fwliament-street, on Tuesday week last, A. M. 
Jackpnti T'^,, , solicitor, in the chair. The moot 
' the exoroiso of the right of stoppage 

-'lind the contract ?" was discussed. 
-■'■■ J. M. (oilier took the afiiimative view of 
'he point, while Mr. H. Lambert, Mr. G. A. A. 
l.aylor, and Mr. E. C. Boden argued in the nega- 
On the voting being taken, the point was 

At the usual weekly meeting of the society, held 
on Tuesday evening last, at the Law Institution, 
the question fer discussion was No. 515, legal — 
Was the case Hirst v. Bott rightly decided ? It 
was decided in the affirmative. The question for 
next Tuesday is : — Ought the absolute power of 
testamentary disposition to be restricted so as 
to disable the parent from entirely disinheriting 
bis children ? 


Note.— This depftrtment of the Law Times, is contributed 
by Edward Walford, M.A., aud late scholar of Bolliol 
College, Oxford, and Fellow of the GeueaioBrical and 
Historical Society of Great Britain ; and, as it is desired 
to make it as perfect a record aA possible, the families aud 
frienda of deceased members of tlie Profession will oblige 
by forwardinK to the Law Times Otiice any dates aud 
materials required for a biographical notice. 

The late James Read, Esq., solicitor, of Milden- 
hall, Suffolk, who died at his residence in that 
town on the 19th ult.,in the seventy-ninth year of 
his age, wrs the only son of the late George Read, 
Esq., by Catherine Oddin his wife, formerly of 
Westwell, Kent. He was bom in tho year 1796, 
and was admitted a solicitor in Easter Term, 
1818. He commenced practice in that year at 
Mildenhall, and afterwards entered into partner- 
ship with Mr Thomas Archer. During the course 
of his practice he held the appointment of Regis- 
trarof the County Court, from the first establish- 
ment of tho courts of this nature ; he was also 
Clerk to the Mildenhall Fen Commissioners, Clerk 
to the Highway Board, Clerk to the Lakenheath 
and Hockwold Road, Clerk to the Mildenhall 
Burnt Fen Road, and Clerk to the Mildenhall 
Gas Company. For more than half a century Mr. 
Read's sagacity, taste, and ceaseless activity in 
public and private pursuits were turned to account 
in promoting the life and progress of the neigh- 
bourhood in which he lived. He was a patient 
and indefatigable archaeologist, and a great col- 
lector of matters of local interest, whether ancient 
or modern. According to the Bunj and Norwich 
Press, he has left behind him a library of more 
than 2000 volumes, exclusive of his large legal 
library. " It contains, amongst others, about 
eighty volumes relating to the county and univer- 
sity of Cambridge, 100 volumes relating to 
Suffolk, and about an equal number relating to 
Norfolk ; thirty-si-X volumes of the Annxtal 
Heijister, from its commencement in 1758 to 1793; 
a collection of interesting loeal and political 
tracts, in sixteen volumes, collected originally 
and indexed by tho Rev. Robert Aspland ; a most 
interesting private diary of William Coe, Esq., of 
West-row, date 1G03-1729 ; the Court Rolls of 
Isleham Manors, date 1-108 ; a burlesque transla- 
tion of Homer, illustrated by Bunbury, of whose 
humorous and other engravings he had elsewhere 
an exceedingly numerous collection ; and last, but 
not least, a largo number of papers, documents, 
and curiosities of the parish of Mildenhall, col- 
lected with the hope that soma one might yet, if 
it were after his death, come forward, with the 
time and ability at his command, to draw thence 
the materials for a complete history of that in- 
teresting parish to which he was so deeply at- 
t,ached." Mr. Read married Caroline, daughter of 
Mr. Thomas Archer, his former partner, by whom 
he has left an only son, Mr. James Read, who was 
admitted a solicitor in 1817; he was in partner- 
ship with his father, and is a commissioner to ad- 
minister oaths aud for taking affidavits. The 
remains of the deceased gentleman were interred 
in the family vault at Mildenhall, the funeral 
being attended bv most of the principal inhabi- 
tants of the town. 

Secretary of the Board of Trade, and in tha 
summer of the hitter year he acted as .Joint 
Secretary to the Treasury, during Lord Mel- 
bourne's Administration. In 1847, on the return 
of the Liberal party to power, he was appointed 
Under Secretary for the Homo Department ; 
but in the following year we find him again 
at his former post at the Board of Trade' 
In 1850 he was appointed Chief Clerk to 
the House of Commons, but retired in 1871, 
having held that important office rather mor© 
than twenty years. His services in that depart- 
ment, it will be remembered, were acknow- 
ledged by a formal vote of thanks from th» 
House, proposed by Mr. Gladstone, and seconded 
from the opposition benches by Colonel Wislon. 
Patten (now Lord Winmarleigh). On that oooa- 
sion Mr. Gladstone bore public testimony to " the 
fair and equitable spirit in which Sir Denis Le 
Marchant conducted tho business of tho House of 
Commons, and his great desire to promote tho 
efficiency of the establishment over which he pre. 
sided by doing justice to all parties concerned." 
The baronetcy was conferred upon at the instance- 
of Lord Melbourne, previous tohis retirement from 
ofiicial life in 1841, and he hold a seat in the 
House of Commons for a short time in 1846-47, as 
M.P. for Worcester, in tho place of Sir Thomas 
Wilde (afterwards Lord Truro) on his first eleva- 
tion to the Bench. The late baronet was not un- 
known in the literary world, having edited, with 
considerable ability, an editionof Horace Walpole's 
" Memoirs of George III." Sir Denis Le Mar- 
chant married in 1835 Sarah Eliza, fourth daughter 
of the late Charles Smith, Esq., formerly M.P. 
for Westbury, and sister of the late Sir C. J. 
Smith, Bart., of Sutton Park, Essex, by whom ha 
has left two sons and a daughter. His eldest son, 
Henry Denis Le Marchant, who now succeeds to 
the title as second baronet, is a barrister-at-law o£ 
Lincoln's Inn ; he was bom in 1839, and married 
in 1869 the Hen. Sophia Strutt, eldest daughter of 
Lord Belper. 


Her Majesty has been pleased to appoint 
William Frederick Hayea Smith, Esq., to be 
Attorney-General, and Nicholas Atkinson, Esq., 
to be Solicitor- General for the Colony of British 


<^|<Jed in tho negative. A vote of thanks to the 
coairman concluded the meeting. 

The late Sir Denis Le Marchant, Bart., of Chob- 
ham-place, Sarrey, barrister-at-Iaw, and many 
years Chief Clerk of the Houae of Commons, who 
died on the 30th ult., at his residence in Belgfrave- 
road, in the eightieth 3?ear of his age, was the 
second but eldotit surviving son of the late Major- 
General Le Marchant, of 5lanor lo Marchant, in 
the Island of Guernsey, who was killed at tho battle 
of Salamanca, and to whoso sagacity are mainly 
due the introduction of the sword exercise, the 
establishment of the Royal Military College at 
Sandhurst, and various other military reforms. 
He was a brother of the late General Sir John G. 
Le Marchant, formerly Governor of Malta and 
Home time Commander-in-Chief at Madras, whose 
death occurred at the commencement of tho pre- 
sent year. Born at Newcastle-upon-Tyne in the 
year 1795, ho was educated at Eton and at Trinity 
Collrge, Cambridtre. Ho was called to tho Bar by 
the Honourable Society of Lincoln's Inn in 1823, 
and in 1830 he was appointed prinripal secretary 
to Lord Brougham, upon the latter attaining the 
Lord Chanceliurship. In 1834 he was nominated 
to the office o! Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. 
From 1836 down to 1311 he filled the poat of 

|)rofessbnaI ^artiurs^tps §mQlbt^. 

Gazetiv, Oct. 23. 
WAivwRifJHT. Masder. and Wjutmam, nttoraeys and •oU- 
cllor», Wiikeflcld. Oct, 17. Debts by Mundcr 

Qautte^ Oct, 30. 

To sorronder at the Bankrupts' Court, Basinshall-itreet. 

ADTE. WillettL. m-ntleman, NewKont-rd, Pet. Oct. as. Ber. 

^5p^I^^t■Rico. Sur. Nuv. 12 
BiicHA.N, Jamkh. incTchiint. <it. Wlnobestor-st-bldffit, trndlQK as 

Nunkwell and Co. Pet. Oct. 2fl. B^, Pop> J. Sur. Nov H 
Ei>iNGT(»N, John Dalrymple. vlctuollor. Summor-rd, Peokbam 

Pet. Oct. 27. Heit. Murray. Sur. N<iv. 10 
OncK, OusTAVL-.-;. merchant, Uttlo Trinity-la, Upper Thamee-st. 

Pet. Oct. 27. Ri>«. DroufrhHm. Sur. Nov. 13 
Hnrbel, Sa!h;kl Fredbhick, beadle to tho pTiberdAdtAra*^ 
CompiUiy, Stulnlng-la, GnMslutm-at. Pet, Oct. 27. Ro». Mairar. 
Sur, Nov. 10, ^ 

To ffumnder In the Oountry. 
Cran.hkaw. Elijah, prorl«ion de&Ior, Oldham. Pet. Oot 90 
Ifceff. TwftHiale. Sur. Nov, 11 

Pet,Oot.a9. Eeff. 

Nottingham. Pet. 
38. Reg. Perkins. 

Jamf.k. Edwix. I;tt<» coal merchant, Newport. 

K-jl>iTta. Sui-. Nov. 18 
jAgi'E.^, RoiiKiiT. hiilr net manufacturer, 

Oct. 3^ K.'K. I'.iU-yiitt. Sor. Nov. 1« 
8WANV. Henkv, builder, York. Pet. Oct. 

Sur, Nov. m. 

Gazette, Nov. 3. 

To mirrender at tho Bankrupts' Court, BwInirhftU-Btreet. 
Ellis, ALFRRD, Markham-eq, Cheluoa. Pet, Oot. 30. Ree. 

Hoche, Bur. Nov. 13 

To surrender In the Countrj, 
Eauulry, Edward; Spear, .Iosfph; and pointok, Ralph. 

<';nw,ire manufjictururB, Tunstall. Pot. Oct. 3U. Rca, Clrutl- 

lln<ir. Rur. Nov. VI 
Hawthou-v, CuARLEfi Harrdi, tallor, Botton. Pet. Oct, 30. 

Dip. Hia. Uuldrn. Sur. Nov. KI 
Kav. LcwiH KKiiARn. gentleman, Ealing. Pet. Oct. 27. Bee. 

KuHt"n. Hur. Nov. 2t» 
Tavluk, UF.xitv, wan^hotiaeman, Mancheatcr. Pet. Oot. 2D. 

U<v. Kny, Sur. Sot. 3D 
WooLLE.N. Joiiy. iind WOOLLCX, HATTnBW. bono cuttera. 

SlKlIluld. Pet. Oct. W. R^. Woke. Sur. Nov. 19 


Gazette, Oct. Z7, 

AxoKRMTCiX, WiLLiAW JOHN NeTTLUKnip, ffentlomao, Nortb 

ninpton. July 11, 1H74, 
H(H>LE, William .stkphen, Shrewsbury. Nor. 7. Ign. 
Lkkh, Harcol'rt Alfred, cotton merchant, Liverpool. June, 

ai, 1S(71 

Jiqaibaliffiw btr gLrrangemtn!. 

Gazette. Ort. 30. 
ABRAHAHA. IsinORE. clotMoT. HoUowny rd. HollowAy. and Lara- 
betli-wath. Pet. t>ct. -It. Nov, 10. At elovon, at offioeof Sol. 
Uontly, Wefitmln«tcr-brid^rd Lumbcth 
ANDERTON, SAMt'BL, lead merchant, Manoheater and Higher 
lirouifhvm. Pot. Oot. 27. Nov. 30^ at three, at olBoeoISula. 
Huttou And Elliott, Hanoheater 
Bii.i tN^Ti'N. .1 ^MKBiOettdamAn, Leteeater. Pek.OoLHr. Nov. lu; 
iL' t!ioa of Meaars. XiiTrlM,BOoount«nta.^ Priar-U, 

loeoter. Sola. Berridiro uid Morrla, Leloeatar 
Dr ^nrooer, StokOKtn-Trt^nt. Pft, Oot *;. Hov. 90. 

pelanu Arms Inn, 8tokeM>n* Trent, Sol.Staemait 


Digitized by 




[Nov. 7, 1874. 

Brink. Bandolpti, baker. Cttledonian-rd. Pet. Oct. 29. Nov. 16, 

Rt three, at office of Sol. Lewis, WUmingtoii-nq 
Brown, WILT-TAM, butcher. Byker. Pet. Oct. 27. Nov. 11, at 

twelve, Ht offloe of Sol. Smith, Gtitesheart 
CATTLE. .If 8RPH JOHV, eiiRlneer, pjtrrinKdon-rd. Pet. Oct. 37. 

Nov. itj, at two, at oiflce of Sol. Bertie, Great James-gt, Bedford- 
Chadwick. John, size mamiricturer. Roohtlftle. Pet. Oct. 2(J. 

Nov. IB. at three, lit o(lIc« of Hoi. Ryhuice. Dfanchester 
Chambkrn. Alfred, h'Uel proprietor, MaldBtone. Pet. Oct. 36, 

Nov. 11, lit <;lHven, at the Star hotel, Hlgh-st, Uftidatone. Sol. 

Goodwin, Matd<itoDO 
Chisekv. DAvrn, Alrirjin merchnnt, Grac«;hurch-«t, nnd Willes- 

dfen-la. Wnif.'filrn. Pot. Oct. 2S. Nov. TJ, at t^vo, at offi'.-o of 

SoIb. Tillpy nnd LlFtrina, Flnsbury-pl, South 
Cnt'RCH, Alfred BKSjAMfN. drnpt-r, Dt'ptford. Pet. Oct. 27. 

Nov. 17, nt two. fttofflce of Sol. JennlnifH, Lt;adcnhnll-Bt 
Clark, William, former, Eremy-lxinka, netvr Minh^m. Pet. 

Oct. 2L Nov. 1!. at two, atoffiroof .Sol. Culvert, Masham 

CooKiNO, JoH\ Tonkin, and Michkll, stkphbn, hat manu- 

facturere, PuiKance. Ptt. Oct. '27. Nov. lo, at three, at office of 

Sola. Rodd and Comteh, Pcnr,iince 
Cox. Gborgr, publican. Stevinyton. Pet. Oct. 28. Nov. 13, at 

eleven, at office of Sol. JttMsopp, Bedford 
Cro^Haw, Grorgr. hairdresser, Hull. Pet. Oct. 21. Nov. 11, at 

three, at offl^e of Sol. Lavoracle. Hull 
CCTTINO, RirFlAllD, bedstead manufucturor, Manchestfir. Pet. 

Oct, 27. No\'. 17, at three, fitofflCL* of Sol. Dawson. Mariche<<t«r 
Davie.h. James, boerhouae keeper, Tipton, Pet. Oct. "27. Nov. 

11. Ht hiiir-pf.'>tten, at office of Sol. Travis, Tipton 
DOOLBY. Edwakd. out of bunlnew*. Stockport. Pet. Oct, 22. Nov, 

II, ttt three, ut office of Sols. AddleKhaw and Warburton, Man- 
DowniLL, 'William Henrv, builder, nkley. Pet. Oct. ^1, Not. 

ft, nt three, at ofHco of Sols. Fawcrtt nnd Molcnlm, Leeds 
EwwAKDs. JAME:J Kp.nry. bottle beer merchant (tntdlnjt aa 

the Ht tndard Bottle Beer, Co.}. Queen's-rd, Peckham. Pet. Oct. 

24. Nov. Ifi, lit three, nt offloo o? Sol. Green, Qaoen-rt 
FARVrOMUE, WlLLlA>l,'irrocor, Brighton. Pet. Oct. 27. Nov. 17, 

at thrfje, at office of Sol. Lumb, Brighton 
Fiedler, Edward (not Ziedler, as printed in the Oatftti- of Oct, 

22nd!, linen agent, Mllk-flt, and Napier-t^flv, Da!ston-la. Pot. Oct. 

19. Nov. 4, at twelve, at office of Sol. WhltwcU, Kln^f Ht, Cheap- 

Field, William Jabez, (rentiemm, Leo. Pet. Oct. 2S. Nov. ic, 

at eleven, at nfflco of Sol«. Msy, Syke.i, and Batten, Adelaide-pl, 

FlNrHETT, Samitel, smith, Liverpool. Pet. Oct. 26. Nov. 16, 

at Plevtn, at office of Sol. Qiieloh. Liverpool 
Foster, Jo:*r.PH KTepncroc^r, Burrow-in-Fumees. Pet. Oct. 2rt. 

Nov. II, :it oleven. jit the Ship hotel, Barrow-in-Fume6,«. Sols. 

Brwdshiw and Peirsnn, Barrow- in Fum^-sa 

Fruhlino, Oeoroe Charlfs, nnd CoNRATn, Anton MORTi- 

HORB. comraUslon merchnnti. Brabant.<!t, Phllpot-la. Pet. Oct. 

27. Nov. 17, at two, nt the Connun-st hotel. Cannon-st. Sols. 

Parker. Watnev, itnd Clarke 
GodhALL, GEOiUJL. bootmaker, Hereford. Pet. Oct. 'Jf7. Nov. U, 

«tt-Ieven, at at the Kerry Anna hotel, Herofoi"d. Sol. Arthy, 

Hadley. WILLIAM, draper. West Bromwloh. Pet, Oct. ac Nov. 

10. lit twelve, (tt oITlce of Sol. Shftkeapearc, Oldhury 

Barrim, Phinbas, choepcmongor. Duke-»t, Man ch enter -eiq. Pet. 
Oct. 24. Nov. 10. at twelve, at ofHce of Sol«. Nunn and Wink- 
worth. Prtnce'fi-Bt, Cavcndlah-«q 

HOfiii. JosDPH, tailor. St. James's-st. Piccadilly, and Torra-house. 
AddLs m-rd. KennlnBtfjn. Pet. Oct. 28. Nov. U, at twulve. at 
office of Sol. Dnlston. Plccidlllv 

HoLLlvciwnRTn, RoBKHT. Innkcopcr, TTprermill. Jn Raddle- 
worth. Pet. Oct. 2.S. Nov. Iti, at three, at office of SoIh. Messrs. 
Learovd, Hudderfifleld 

BowARTH. Nathaniel, woollen waste dealer. Heap-bridfre, near 
Burv. Pet. Oct. '17. Nov. 12, at three, at office of Sol. Andcrton, 

JacKmoN, CHARLKS. lace manufacturer, Nottlreham. Pet. Oct. 

26. Nov. 17. at twelve, at office of Sol. Brittle, N'Htingrham 
Jackson. Peter, cattle dealer, Dangnnnon House, Walham- 

jrrfcen Pet Oct. 27. Nov. 17, at three, at olllce of Sol. Downing, 

Johnson. George Frederick, chemist, Brighton. Pet. Oct. 28. 

Nov. 10, jit three, ut 11, St. Bride's-avenue. Fleet st, London 
Keenfv, GKonoK, wnd Marshall. William, enpinwrx. New- 

ctistle. Pet. Oct. 37. Nov. 7, at eleven, at office of Sol. Hopper, 

Kino. William, boot dealer, Oldbury. Pet. Oct. 26. Nov. 10, at 

halfpLit ten. atofflce of Sol. Sh«Ite--jpeare, Oldbury 
liASniiAM, Henri, auctioaeer, Wrtxhani hihI JManohester. Pet. 

Oct. 2-J. Nov, II, at three, at the Lion hotel. Wrexham 
XoNrjMORE. Thomas, confectioner, Morecumbe. Pet. Oct. SB. 

Nov. Vi, at twelve, at office of Sola, Meiitars. Sharp, Lancaster 
MooRE. Walter. de:Uer in Jewellerv. Meredith-*t. Clerkenwell. 

Pet, Oct. 2S, Nov. 1*. at two, at offloo of Sola. Evans and Eagle, 

John-.nt. Bedford row 
Mos?«, WILLIAM, cnbiner, maker. Liverpool- Pet. Oct. 28. Nov. 

17, f»t three, iit office of Sol. Ritaon, Liverpool 
MnMFonn, William, grocer, Klnirithorpe. Pet. Oct. 27. Nov. 

11, at fll*?ven, at office of Sol. Toma.ln, Northampt'jn 
Mpmorave, Timothy, grtaier. Lower Edmonton. Pet. Oct. C7. 

Nov, 17. nt three, at office of Memrs. Bath, accountant*!, 40a, 
King Wllliiim-Rt 

Nairn, gkoroe augustp*!. and Nairn, Jamem Haver8, twine 

wpinnera, Wadc's-pJ, Mile-end-rd. Pot. Oot. 27. Nov. 13, at 

two, at office of Sol. Lovett. King WllUara-iit 
Hichoi.etts. Charles Henry, retired colonel in the army, 

Guildford. Pet- Oct 36. Nov. 13. nt two, at the Whit« Lion 

hotel. Guildford, Sol. Diirbldgo. Guildford 
OLDtORN, Hannait Maria. widow, OftWtt. Pot. Oct. M. Nov. 

m, at eleven, nt office of Sol. Stringer. Oaaett 
Ormebod. JAMKPi. builder, ChorlU>n-on-Medlock. Pet. Oot. 37. 

Nov. 14, at ten. at office of Sola. Hctiflra. Hall. Manchester 
Orrin, William, buU-ier, Orimobiiry, Pet. Oot. IK. Nov. 13, at 

two. at the Reindc»*r inn, Banbury. Sols. Pain and Hawtin 
Pkrrksm, Walter James, Ironmonjrer, Southampton. P^t. Oct 

27. Nov. 11. at two, at the Chamber of Commerce, 145, Cheap- 
pltle, Sol. Guy, Southampton 

PopilAM, .TAMES Payne, tambour work minuf,-»ctnrer. Copford 

and Co'ireKhnll. Pet. Oct. 34. Nov. 10, at tliroe, at office of Sol. 

Aird, Ei>'tche;ip 
pRlTCE.Joiiy. hairdresser, NewSwindon, Pet. Oct. 23. Not. 10, 

ac t,cn, lit office of Sola. Kinnelrand Tombe, Swindon 
KeEK!). William BenrT, coal merchant. Wimbome Minster. 

Pet. Oct. 22. Nov. 7. at eleven, at office of Sohf. Moore and 

BowerH. Wtmbome Minster 
BlcnARpR. James, greengrocer. Clifton. Pet. Oot. 3G. Nov. 7, 

at Iwr-lvp nt office of M. H. Clark, II, High-«t, Bristol, Soli*. 

Stevens, Bristol 
BiCK rtts*. Joh n. bnker, Dudley. Pet. Oct. 23. Nov. 18, at three, 

lit offlre of Sol, Warminjrton, Dodley 
BoMAVo. .Iosi;pH. proftiwBor of mu-'ic. Brooklyn-rovl, Ooldhawk- 

rd, Sh^phwd's Bawh. Pet. Oct. 'J6. Nov, IS, at two. at offices of 

Giimble and Harvey, I, Greahara-buildingB, Baslnghall-at. Sol. 

tlrrv. Wntnor 
Schmidt christian, and STOBZEWArKRB, HBNBY, cigar mer- 

chants, Liverpool. Pet. Oct. 28. Nov. 17, at three, at offices of 

Sol«, H«'j".ir«. O'linn, Liverpool 
Scott, ANnie Mary, milliner, Corhoe. Pet, Oct. 2£>. Nov. 13, 

at two. at office of 8ol«. Mt-a^rs. Joel. Newcastle 
SmuRTHWAITK. John, grocer. Bvkorin Newcastle. Pet. Oct. 27. 

Nov. 1^, nt twelve, at office of So)3. Keenlysldo and Fonster, 

Sqi'ikk, Fli, gTOcor, Wolverhampton. Pet, Oct. 27. Not. U, 

at four, atofflct" of Sol. Dallnw, Wolverhampton 
St,*nbrook, Thomas, briokmaker, Pareham, Pet. Oot. 37. 

Nov. 13, nt eleven, at offices of Sol, Goble^ Fareham 
Starkkt, Tiiomah, Rhoemaker, Lstchford. Pet. Oct. 23. Not, 

10, at half-pn«t ten. at office of Sol. Bretherton, Warrington 
BTE5NETT, Fba Ncifi Sewell. farmer, Swine«head. Pot. Oot. 27. 

NfjT, 12, 8t eleven, at office of Sol. Dyer, Boston 
STOKOK, JAMEK. groocr. Hougbton-le-8pring. Pot. Oct. 27. 

Nov. U, at three, at the offices of Sol. BeU, Sunderland 
Sl'TCLiFFE, Thomas Benton, Chorlton-cnm-Hardy, near Man- 

cheotor. Pet. Oct. 2H. Nov. 11. at three, at Office of Sols, Sale, 

Shlpmrtn. Sertdon, and Sale, Manchester 
Tannam, fJEOROR. out of buBlnew, Jameapl, Bpll-st, Edgware- 

rd. P«^t Oct. 27 Nnv. 12. at three, at offlcca of Soln. Rickctta, 

FredeHrk-st, GrayVinn-rd 
TBBHRLB. OroROE, builder, Aftpatrli. Pot. Oct. 27. Nor. 12, 

at three, nt office of Sol. Wannop. Carlislo 
Watkis«, T1IOMA8. victualler, Priors Leo. In Sbtfnal. Pet, Oct. 

2P, Nov. It!, at tw. Ivu. atoffice of Sol, PhflUpa, Shlfnal 
TFhiTE, George, and Hart, David, wine and spirit merchant'*, 

Oeorpe-st, Towcr-hlll. Pet. Oct. 34. Nov. 13. at twelve, at the 

City Tennlnoa hotel, CanDon-st. Sola. Ueun. Ltnklaten 

WILLIAM!). Edward, chemist, Shifnal. Pet. Oct. 27. Nov, 17 

at ten. at office of Sol. Taylor, WwUlugton 
WRIGHT, William, pastry cook, Hacknov-ril. Pet 0:;t. 24. 

Not. U, at ten, at W. Mackay's offices, 32, Colemon-at, Bank. 

Sol. Goatly 
FoxALL, Thomas, draper. Aberdarc. Pet. Oct. 23. Nov. 4, at 

three, at office of W, H. WiUlama and Co., The Exchange, 

Bristol, In lieu of the place origlanlly named, 
GRTFFiTfiti, Levi, and Griffiths, Enoch Watkis, tidlors. 

Treorky. Pet. Oct. 27. Nov. 7. at two, nt offloo of Alexander 

Brothers. accounUiuta. 7G, Saint Mary-at, Cardiff, in lieu of the 

place orU'lnally named. 

Gazetie, Nov. 3. 
Abell. George Mijtlow. gentleman. Olonceater. Pet. Oot. 2!». 

Nov. 14, at twelve, at 1, Uninswlek-rd, Olouceater. SolH. Pea- 
cock and G^>ddard, South-?)q, Gruy's-inn 
Allen, John, grocer, Boston. Pet. Oct. 31. Nov. 17, at two. at 

tho City Terminus Hotel, Cannon-st, London. Sola. SUnpson 

and Mfllington 
AllrN. William, clothier. Liverpool. Pet. Oct. 29. Nov. PI, at 

half-past three, at office of the Home Trade Association, 8, 

York-5t, Mvinche-stcr. SoL GolTey, Liverpool 
Atkix.son. John Carter, baki-r. Blrmingbnm. Pet. Oot C9, 

Nov. US, at eleven, at office of Sol. Foattr, Beunott's-hUl, Bir- 
ATKiNf^ON. William, builder. TonBley-rd,Wand8wort.h. Pet. Oct. 

28. Nov. 1ft, lit two. at office of Sol. Jonotf, Bank-bulldiogti, 

Backhouse. Joseph Tearrar. plumber. Normnnton. Pet. 

Oct. 30. Nov. Hi, at two, at the Bull hotel, Wakefield. Sol. 

BAILEY, William Elta8. print Rcller. Bath. Pet. Oct. 30. Nov. 

1«, at eleven, at office of Sol. Wilton, Weatgote-bldgs. Bath 
BALE, Jaub.'^, draper, Stroud. Pet, Oct. 30, Nov. 16, at two, at 

office of HoU. M'-ss. Taynton, Gloucester 
Bates, Charles, miller. Great Kimble.^ Pet. Oot. 30. Nov. 23, 

at twelve, at office of Sol. Poll. Avle«hury. 
Blanchard, William, builder, South.set*. in par. Portaea. Pet. 

Oct. 'ii. Nov. 1 4, at eleven, at office of Sot Feltbam, Union-st, 

Boff, George, the elder, carponUsr. Park-it, near Rt. Albans. 

Pet. Oot. 28. Nov. 19, at four, at the George hot^l, St. Albaiu*. 

B0I . Annesley 
Bko^comc, Samitel. confectioner, Huddenfield. Pet. Oot. 29, 

Nov. 21, at twelve, at the WhlteSwan Hotel. Hudderslleld. Sol. 

Freeman, Huddersfleld 
Butler, Thomas, shoe mannfaoturer, Stafford. Pet. Oct. 28. 

Nov. 12, at three, at office of Sol. Morgou, StnlTord 
Carter, William, greengrocer, HallfiLX. Pet. Oct. 35. Nov. 

•14. at three, at office of Sol. Rhodes, Hidlfax 
CARUIJTHEUS. John Ryland, re«d maker, Blackburn. Pet. 

Oct. 30. Nov. 17, at eleven, at office of Sols. Hail and Holland, 

Clarke, John Thomas. Ironmonger. Nottingham. Pet. Oct. 27. 

Nov. 13. at twelve, at office of Sol. Belk, Mlddle-pavoraont, NoU 

Clough. Leonard, out of buHinejw, Sunderlind. Pet. Oct. 27. 

Nov. Vi, at twelve, at offlco of Sols. Me.<»Br3. KItaon and 

UcKenrie, Sunderland 
Cohen. Jules, out of bu«ine«9, Beaumont-aq, Mile End. Pet. Oot. 

31. Nov. ja. at three, at office of Sol. Green, Queen-at 
Cook, James, baker. Bristol, Pet. Oct. 29. Nov. i:^ at twelve, 

at office or SoL». Salmon aa^ Henderson, Bristol 
Cook, Samuel, grocer. Middlesborough. Pet. Oot. 28, Nov. 17, 

at thr?e, at office of .Sol. Addenbnjoko. Middlesborough 
Coulson. JOHN; and CODLSON, ROBERT, cornmillerM. Bridling- 
ton Ouiiy. Pet. Oot. 31. Nov, 17, at half-p;«<t three, at offices of 

B. Pickering, 8, Parllomeot^t, Klngstou-on-HuU. Sol. Wray, 

Deacon, Elizabeth, rag merchant, Hemel Hempstead. Pet. 

Oct.. 27, Nov. IB, at twelve, at office of Sol. Bullock, Berkhamp- 

Df;verill, Mary Jane, pawnbroker. Fnzakorley. Pet. Oct. 30. 

Nov. lli, at three, nt tne Law Aaaoclatlon Rooms, Cook-st, 

Liverpool. Sol, Goffiw. Llverpoo' 
Emery, John, sen., and Emery. John, jnn.. ahocmakoi-s. Now. 

caaUe-under-Lyme. Pet. Oct. 22. Nov 12, at one, at office of 

Sol, Lichrteld. Newoa.stl6-nnder-LjTne 
EVANS, JOI'", ntof business. Kennlngton-rd. Pet. Oct. 29. Nov 

l.t, at twt. . I. Peela's ooffee hmiac, Floot-nt. Uol. Cnlkln. 

BuKby-cli>tiiil*t)i(*. i_, -eat Juraes-st W.C. , 

FAIL, Samuel John, cirmon. Little CoUejre-st. Cannon^it. Pet. 

Oct. *AI. Nov. 12, at three, at Peele'B cofTbe house, Fleet-st. Sol. 

Rt*(bv. H^lf MotJU -crescent, Islington 
FOX, JOHN William. tob.»ccoril'<t, Scymour-st, Euston-rd. Pet. 

Oct. 30. Nov, 19, at three, at office of Sola. Willoufc'hbv and Cox, 

CjIfrordVlnn, Pleet-8t 
Gardner, Jame«i. coal merchant. Doncaster. Pet. Oot. 30. 

Nov. IS, at twelve, at the Elephant hotel, Doncajster. Sol 

Heathootc. Ooncaster 
Garsett, Oeoroe, and Jeavons. Simeon, bookseller, Barrow- 

In-Fumesi*. Pet. Oct. 20. Nov, 13, at twelve, at the Ship hotel,^. Sol. Thompson 
GENT, Peter, refreshment room keeper. New Brighton. Pet. 

Oct. 27. Nov. 23, at three, at office of Sol. Bundle, C:»stle-*t, 

GIBSON. MATTHEW, briok Setter, Blaokbum. Pet. Oct. 29. Nov. 

19. at eleven, at office of Sol, D.u-ley, Blackburn 
Gipjson, Geoiic;e. plumber, Aylbartou, In par. Lydncy. Pet. 

Oct. 2«. Nov, 21, at twolvd, at office of Sol. Cooke, Pitt-st, 

Gray. John, travelling draper, Merthyr T.vdfll. Pot. Oct, .30. 

Nov. IS, at twelve, at office of Messrs. Harris and Taylor, 

MfcrtJiyr Tydtll. Sol, Bcddoe. Merthyr Tydfil 
Griffin. Martha Ann, farmer, Cardiff. P«t.Oot.29. Nov. 31, 

at eleven, at office of Sol. Morgan, Cardiff 
Harte. Frederick John, wholeaale stationer, Manchester. 

PLt, Oct. 13. Nov. 16, at three, at offloe of Sola. Addle«haw and 

Warbiirton, Manchester 
Haterkon. John Thouas. stationer, Anerley, Aldermajibury, 

OrcBham-Ht, and Wil,'< Pet. Oct. 33 Not, II, at thrcts. nt 

ht the Ctiiunber of Commerce. It.'*. Chei^Mdde. Sols. Wild, 

B^urber, and Bro^vne, In^in monger- la, Cheapalde 
Hill. William, bedding manuf wturor. Trowbridge. Pet. Oct. 

2S. Nov, Hj, Ht two, at the Crosj* Keys hotel. Orange-grove, Batl>, 

Sol. Shrnpnell, Bradford -on- A von 
HIRKT. Mary, widow, Rotherhain. Pot. Oct. 27. Nov. 17, at 

one, sit office of Sol, Hovle, Rotherham 
Hooper. Benjamin, leather inerchnnt. Bary-st. St. Mary Axe, 

Pet. Oot. 30 Nov. Iti. at eleven, at offitio of Me«Mrs. George Woi-d 

Ch:illlrt and Co., 12. Clomont's-la. Sol. Wickons 
HviUi^TON, John George, joiner. Oxt-jn, Liverpool. Peb.Oot.29. 

Nov. l.t, at two, at office of Gibson and Bolland, accountants, 10, 

South, Liverpool. S'»l. Blackhurst, Liverpool 
Howling, Amy. grocer. Cow Cross-st. West Smlthfleld. Pet. Oot, 

31. Nov. 12, at twelve, at offic* of Mr. Alfr«l Nickemon, M 

King William istrcvt, London Bridge. Sul. GeauAseut, New 

HuouE.s, JOHN, Innkeeper, Llnnnhnngel Gencurglyn. Pet. Oct. 

:<0. Nov 17, at twelve, nt officeof Sol, Jouuh, Abtrry^twith 
Huhberstoke, George, bootmaker. Great Grimsby. Pot. 

Oct. 20. Nov. 14. at eleven, at offic«d of Sols. Grange and Wln- 

trltighnm. Great Oilinsiby 
jACtfiON, George. Ironnvjnger, Hasham. Pet. Oct. 30. Nov. 16, 

at ten, »t offices of Sul. Calvert, Moaham 
Lawhon, Jamek, picture frame maker, Wolverhampton. Pet. 

Oct. .'11. Nov. 21, at ten, at offloe of Sol. Hill, Quoen-sq, Wolver- 

Lewis, Robert, minors' agent. St. Helen's. Pet. Oct. 31. Nov. 

17, ut two, fit um<\K of Sol. Wood, Wlgan 
Mahrison, BL17.ABETH, wldow, Carlton -upon- Trent. Pet. Oot. 

2i. Nov. IS, at four, at office of Sol. Sliocklock, Nework-upon- 

Harrison, Oodfrrt William Hall, Joiner, Carlton-upon- 

Trent. Pot, Oct. 29. Nov. 18, at three, at office of Sol. Shack- 
lock, Newiurk-upon -Trent 
McCarthy, frascis Joseph, and Downino, Wasuinoton. 

b;ioon fjctors, OUUpur-«t, SmtthHeld Pet- Oct. SI. Nov. 18, at 

three, at office of Messrs Izanl and Betta, public accountants, 

46,«p, Sol. Handaon, King-^t, Chcapslde 
M<'Nab. Colin, provision merchant, Liverpool. Pet. Oct. 31. 

N-iv. Ifl, at three, nt offloe of Sol. Ltijjton, Liverpool 
M'-;dhijr-.t. Richard. Bishop'* W.iitham. Pet. Oot, SI. Nov. 

16. at three, at St Oforge's hou-iie, St. Oeorge'8-sq, Portseu. 

Sols. Cousins nnd Burbidi^e. PorLKmouth 
M lis, WILLIAM, eating hou-sc ktM-per, Blackpool, Pet, Oct- 31. 
Nov. 21. at one, at the Royal holel, Blackpool. SoL Sykea, 
Norburt, William, dntprr, Blackbom. Pet. Oct. 30. Nov. 17, 

nt cloven. ato'Hce of Sol. Darley, Blackburn 
Oakley. William Hknst, of nooccupntlon, Bromley. Pet. Oct, 

27. S'<v. 14, at thnw, at oflleo of SoL Frogsabt, Argyli-at. 


Paddock. Phine AS, builder, Walsall. Pet. Oct. 30 Nov 19 «* 

half-past ten, at office of Sol. Bill, Walsall ' *' 

Parker, George, form Inbourer. Gulseley. Pet Oct ?w w~. 

17, at two, at office of Sol. Har:e. Lewis ""■ "ct- =». Nor. 
Parton. Henry Banokb, grocer, Cnrdlff. Pet. Oot 30 N«» 

J6, at one. at offlccR of Mos«rs. Bru-nard. Thomas. Tribe and (V* 

Albion-ch.. Brktol. Sols. Griffith and Corbett. Cardiff ^ 

Pattison, Borer r. tailor, Middlesborough. Pet Oct. 2fL w«» 

18, at one, at Harker's hotel. York. .Sol, Addenbrooke 
Pbrhy, Edwin, draper. Dnlnn-Bt. Southwark. Pet.Oct.M Sot 

12, at one, at th*) Chamber of Commerce. 145, Choapslde ' Rni" 

Wlckens, Palmeraton-buUdinga, Old Brttad-st ' ** 

Pick, Wheatley Ligginm, grocer, Derl>y. Pet. Oct 28 No* 

16, at ihroe, at office of Sol. Oretton, Dert^ 
Ponder. George, timber merchant. Borough-rd, SoutbwaA. 

Pet. Oct. 2B. Nov. 10. at eleven, at the Railway hotel and CroH 

Keys tavern, Blackfriara-rd. Sol, Medcalf, Greaham-bnlldinii^ 

Easlnghall-et '"**■■» 

Prince, James, trainer. Purley Lodc-e. Patcham. Pet. Oct 3» 

Nov, 21, at eleven, uL office of Sol. Goodman, Prince Albert-«t! 

Biighton ^ 

Reed, John William wyatt, baker, Exeter. Pet. Oct. SBi 

Nov. 14, at four, at the Three Cranes Inn, South-st, Kxeter 
Rowley, JuLii-ii Hexry, clerk in holy oi-ders, Walesby Pat. 

Oct. 29. Nov. IR. at eleven, at office of W. T- Pnce. j un.. Flaxen^ 

gate, Lincoln. Sols. Pago and Padloy. Market Rascn 
Sarrington, Jeffery. miller, Coldecott MUi, in pur. Kewtxni 

Pagnell, Pet. Oct. 31, Nov. 16. ut three, at the Swan hot^ 

Newport Pagnell. Sol. Bull. Newport Paanell, Bucks 
Sharp, William, land agfnt. Maidenhead, Pet. Oct. 29, Nor, 

18, at twelve, at office of Sol. Harrisons. Fowke's-boilding^ 

Great Tower-st. London 
Sheplby, Alexander, grooor, Hyde. Pot. OoL 31. Nor. 18, it 

three, at office of Sol, Smith. Hyde 
SnowLER, Thomas, plumber, Walnflcet All SalntB. Pet. Oot. 

30. Nov. 17, at two, at the Angel Inn, Walnfleet All Saint*. 
Sols. Thimblcby nnd Son, Spllsby 

SOMERVILLK, THOMAS, out of buHineps, Hulme. Pet. Oct. 3D. 
Nov. 2.5, at throe, at office of Sols. Sutton and Elliott, Man- 

Thompson, matthkw Herbert, painter, Felton. Pet. Oct 

an. Nov. 1.1, at two, at offices of Sol. Niiiboluon, Morpeth 
TooN, William, cattle dopier, Farc*-t. Pet. Oct. SB. Nov. 

twelve, at the Wentworth hotel, Wentworth-st, Peterborough. 

Sol. Luw, St;imford. Llncoln.i'hlre 
TiLVNTER, John, railway clerk, Sheffield. Pet. Oct. 20. Nov. 18. 

at three, at officeof SoL Craug, Sheffield 
UNCLES, Jaheh. beer retailer, Bath. Pet. Oct. 28, Nor. 14, ■& 

one, at officeof Sol. Webb, Fountain- bdgs, B.-Uh. 
Walker, Matthew Sidney, grooer. Ford Oreon. Pet. Oct. 27, 

Nov. 14, at eleven, at office of Sol. Julian. Wedgwood Chambers, 

Walsh, William, wine and spirit dealer. LiverpooL Pet Oct, 

31. Nov. 17, at two, at office of Sol. Hughea, LivcrpfK>l 
Watson, George, grocer. Northgate, Hartlepool. Pet, Oot.9, 

Nov. 1«. at three, at office of Sol. BeU, West Hartlepool 
White, Edward, comfactor. Savageg-vdens and the Com Ez- 

chanifo, Mark-la. Pet, Oct. 31. Nov. 18, at twelve, nt the Com. 

Exohiuige-ohambers, Seethlng-la. Sols. Parker, Watnoy, and 

Clarke, St. Michael 'ji-alU-y, CornhiU 
Williams, Thomas, boiler maker, M.^nche^ter, Pet. Oct. 38 

Nov. IS, at twelve, nt the Mltru hotel. Manchester. Sola. Potter 

and Knight, Manehci.-'ter 
WiNspER, ARTHUR, boot manufacturer. Great Bridge, In par. 

Tipton. Pet. Oct. 30. Nov. L% at three, at office of SoLWur 

mlngton. Cai-tK'-f>i. Dudley. 
Wiseman, George, baker, Richard-^t. St. Leonard'w-rd, Bromlw- 

by-Bow. Pet. Oct. 24. Nov. 11 . at cloven, at the Blackwall Rail- 
way hotel, London-st. Sol, ^gby. Half Moon-crescent, laUnc- 

WintertoN, John Edward, deolerln ahoree, Penge. Pet. Oot, 

28. Nor. 13, at three, at in, Trinlty-at, Southwark, Sol. Ody 
Woodward, Joseph, leather seller, Wolverhampton. Pet. Oct. 

.W. Nov. 14, at eleven, at officeof SoL Green, Corporation^ 


©rbfrs of Btsc^arge. 

Ga2«t(<r, Oct. 27. 

Bolton, Bbenezer, soda water manufacturer, Weymonth- 

8t, Portland-pl, Marylobone, under Arm of Thomas Devlne and 


Dunderdale, Thomas, Jan.. worstod stuff manufacturer, Bo- 


Qaztttt, Oct. 30. 
Evans, Robert, builder, Alfredrd, South Norwood 




Tht Official Asaignecst Jtc., are given, to whom apply for tk* 
Brrxlrhani, J. gentleman, first, fid. At Hoop hotel. Carabridm. 
— />iaroir, G. Hurtlepool. first and final fig. Cd. At S0I-, W. Todd, 
Town-wall, Hartlepool. — A'lp, W. tea merchant, first and final. 
Is. 9d. At Trust. C. T. Starkey, 37, Cannon-»t., Blrmlnffham.— 
j^ff-n>-g itTid MarUan, comnilsslnn agtiits, first and final aep. « 
Muclean 20s. At Trust, J. Ualllday. 2f», Booth-st., MaBch«rt«-.— 
J.,h>.wM,J. and W.. miller", first joint of 4s. 3d. ; second joint of 
3d. ; first sop. of J. JohnsiTtn of 2s, tA. ; second aop. of J. Johnion 
of 2d, ; first sep. of W. Johnson of *a. ; neoond aep. of W. Johnjon 
of 3d. At Sol., W. T. Page, Lincoln.— LaHmor. T. stuff manufso- 
turor. second and final Is. 3d. At Trust. H. Dlckin, Market-stj, 
Bradford.— Li»r»/r, J. Sutton, fln-t. «d. At Trust. E. H,»rt, W, 
MooTgate-Bt.— Wo^AfM, C. W. merchant, first nnd final 3«. 9a. A* 
Trust. W. F, Taaker. ir.. North Churoh-at., Shemo]d.-/'«'»«-, W. 
B. and inW', H, A. aooountant-i and morchonta, first, la. 9a. AS 
Trust. E. M. Bullard, Redwell-st., Nfmrlch. 


BIRTHS. ^^ ..^ 

Baknard.— Onthe2TthSept.. at Rcmgoon, British Burma, the wuo 

of K. J. Bamai-d. Esq.. barriater-at-law. of a eon. .. 

DoBRS,-On the 1st inst., at No. S2, St. Oeorge's-aqaope, S-W., «» 

wife of R. C. Dobbs, Esq., barrister-st-law. of a son. _^ _ 

FOR>rrKR— On the 2Hth ult., at We«t View, 8t. IWgMW^H 

Twickenham, the wife of J. DougUs Forater, Baq., barrwor-a*- 

law,*ofafon. , -..^ 

Pollock. -On the 2nd InflL. at 4.|Chcster-plaoe, Regent b fw, 

the wife of Edward Pollock, Esq., barrUter-aH<»w. « « 

daughter. ^. .v*»if« 

POPE.-On the 30th nit., at 4. Holy rood-pl ace, Plymouth, t»wua 

of John Billing Pope, bHrrister-wt-Iaw, of a daughter. 

MARRIAGES. _^ ,^ /n«— 1, 

CRAiGlE-LTNrH,-On the 29th ult., at Holy Trinity C»ttf»* 
Paddington, Edmund Crairle, Kaq., barrfctterat-Iaw, W*^*J?1J2 
Jnne Mnry, youngwt dao^feer of the tote Captain H. »v^ 
Lsmcb, C.B. d i- rf 

Pain-Buckbt.— On the 3d Inat., at Basrlly. Tho""** / , , <„ 
Stratfleld House. Thurlow-park-road. West D^lwloh. and « *;» 
coln's-inn. Barrister- :it-law, to Kanr Anno, second daogniw w* 
the Rev. Richard Buckby, rector of Boffelly. 

DEATHS. . fii.-ow 

JAMERON.-On the 31rt ult., at 13. Woodalde-orewent, GJMiw. 

Robert Jomraon. solicitor, aged 78. , «__— witah- 

RoWE.~On the .loth ult.,^at 10, Queen Anne-rtnwMW^^JJ^ 

square. Sir Joishua Rowe, Knt. C.B.. formerly Chief MKBob <» 

the lalond of Jamaica, a^ed 77 years. , 


Tlie throat and windpipe are especially ''»^'f,j^ 

inflammation, caueing soreness and dryn^^s. 


and irritation, inducing cough nnd '^'''^^'",^ / ,^n ot 
For these symptoms use glycerine i" ^''"l^^sB. 
injnbes. GWcorine in these ngrceaMe ciu'e"" "J 
being in proximity to the glands at the iiomen» '°^ 
are eicited by the act of sucking, become^ ..„m». 

K^patbic Chemist". 
48, Thxoadneodle-Btf«et, and 170, PiccadiUy.-L*''"-' 

healing. 6d. and Is. packets (b.v p< st S o' .'Vt'-^iitol 
labelled " James Epps and Co., Homoiopatbic CBemu« 

Digitized by 

Nov. 14, 1874.] 




®0 ^caijcrs aittr Cornsgontrtnts. 

AnoBpnoos communications are invariably rejected. 

AJl commouications must be authenticated by the name and address of the writer 

not nece«sarily for publication, but as a guarantee of good faith. 
All commnnlcations intended for the Editob of thb Souciioes' DEPAHTsmrr 

Kbe lo addressed. 
»» or tWrtj) icorA? 3s. 6d. | Every additional len luord* Os. 6d 

Advertisements si)ecially ordered for the first page are charged one-fourth more 
than the above scale. 
Advertisements must reach the Office not lattr than five o'clock on Thursday 
rsftemoon. ^ 


^^Bl volnmaa of the Latv Ttues, and of the L*w Times Kkpobts, are strongly and 
^^^^lifonnly bound at the OiUce, aa completed, for Ss. Cd. for the Journal, and 4s. 13d. 
^^Ktothe Beports. 

Portfolios for preserving the current numbers of the .Law Times, price 5s. 6d; 
Law Tiuks BEPOaxs, price 38. 6d. 


Law TiaiKS gots to press oil Thurtday evening^ that it muv be received in the remofMf 
ril of *he countrij on Satitrdoy Tnoming, ComjiiuiiicatiOTia and Advertiumcntemiist 
tniiumitted accordingly. A'^oiio can opjear tiwl do not reach tlw ofice by Thurjdoy 
qrt<r7io«n'< post. 
When payment is made in paetage «famp«, not nwr« than 5«. may be remitted at one iim 


Just published. Part .'i7, price Is., 


FnbUsbed Quarterly. The Volumes may be had from November ISlJl. 

London : *' Law Times" Otfioe, 10. Wellington-street, Strand. 

Just pnblishcd, price 58. 6d., Part 1. VOL. IX., of 

BLECTIOK, and ECCLKSIASTICAL LAW CASES, decided tiy all the Courts. 
Bent post free to subttchberfl. N.B.— The back volumes and parts may be had ; the vols. 
n tSs. each. haU-buund. 

London : " Law Times " OCBce, 10, Wellington-street, Strand, W.C. 



E E P O E T S. 

ParUam«ntiiTT election— Withdrawing 
petttion— Punctlrjns of the Judtfo 321 



. Co, f. ORIEXTAL 

-iilvlnfi- time . 

. S22 

KiiEUL r. Park— 

DamfljfM— Wron;.-ful po.'WMKlon— Oocu- 
patioa rent 33 


Wm-Lcg«cy— Spoclflc or domonstrft. 

Uv«_ 338 

UCBtL ». Baton anh Okkll— 

Partoeniiip— M'HKjy borrowed by ono 
puuuor without authority— NegU- 
gCBo* In lender 330 

TK Bonov ELECTION' Pktitios— Mal- 
colm {pec) V. INUOAII A^U Pauuy 

PirUunantarr eluction— ScruUny under 
■Ml-Sof theii.UlotAct 331 

fillip and shipping— Supplementary 
Oup^BiU ol L-idlns— Wulvtir of oh- 
iteOaato 330 

OOrPT ' 

Rtrnr - 

. Baii.way CAR- 

It lun— Hvmomndum 




Topkscr Oi«WoQlE «...»...».—.—.»...• 10 

Cooa««l'B Fee* - 21 

Invalid AdJodtooUons In Biinkrupt^r 21 

Tbfi tvpNme Court of Judicature Act S 

lawLllRAaY ....^ - 22 

Solicitors' Journal [Edited by a Sollol- 

torj — 

Topics of the Week «„ ». W 

Note« of Now Decisions „ 25 

Court of Queen's Bench - 25 

Unclaimed Stock nnd Dlrldeuds In the 

BAnkof Enjrlimd 39 

Appointments under the Joint Stock 

Winding-up Act« 98 

Creditors under Eitatea in Chancery 33 

Creditomnndor S&XlTtct. c. 33 20 

BcporUof Saloa ^ Sj 

UAniflTRATES* Law— 

Notes of Ne«' Decisions M 

Awtetwrnent of Spnrtlns Rl«ht« 35 

Court of Qijuon'H Bench (Ireland) ,. 2tf 

Hbrcaxtile Law— 
NotcQof New Decisions ^ 27 

CorrxTY CorRTs— 

BlrmliiHhiim County Court 27 

Llskcftrd County Court 27 

South ShleldM County Court ..._ 29 

Yarmouth County Court .„„ „ iW 

Wlinbomu County Court 20 


BrlyMton County Court „ 20 

Oldbury County Court 20 

When 1h Ml AKalanmcut of a, Debtor's Pro- 
perty im Act of Bankruptcy f 30 

Legal News - 32 

Law Students* Journal— 

Quoatioua for the Final Examination 33 


Notes and Queries on Points or Frao* 


Law Societies— 

Social bclencti AMiocUtion 31 

Articled Clerks' Socloty 3* 

Solicitors' Bencvolcut Association 3S 

Law AMOCtntlon 35 

L«K»1 Practitioners' Society 3ii 

Manchester Law Students' Debating So- 

clety » 

Law Students' Dobnting Socloty 35 

Birmlnfftaam Law Studcnu' Society 35 

Portsmouth Law Students' Socloty 35 

Norwich Law Studcntf.Soolety 35 

Huddonfleld Law Students' Debating 

Society - » 

Bull Law StudeoU' Society » 

paohotions and app01ktment8 - « 35 

The Oazettks - "...- — — 3* 

blbtbs, mabriaoes, and deaths sb 

t\t f !tto m)i t|c fnfojiers. 

PaoM tho short speenh delivered by the Lord CiiAifCEi,LOR at the 
Mansion Ministerial Banquet last Monday, it might bo 
inferred that his Lordship is engaged in labours for the " simpli- 
fication" of tho law. His Lordship was addressing a general 
public assembly, and we can hardly conclude that he was referring 
to the principles of law, but rather that he contemplated tho 
operation of the Judicature Act, and tho probable passing of the 
liwd Transfer Bill. Should Lord Cairns bo now engaged on 
this latter measure, he undoubtedly has ample work before him. 
It requires very careful revision. So much in the way of law 
VOL. IVm.— No. 1650. 

reform has been carried through Parliament in recent years that 
to demand tho immediate " simplification " of tho law would bo to 
ask for what it is h.-vrdly reasonable to expect. The subject, how- 
over, is one which should bo kept before the public and profes- 
sional mind, and tho simplification of the law would seem naturally 
to crown measures for improving legal procedure. 

On the assumption, we suppose, that the law of libel is not 
sufficiently comprehensive, an attempt has been made to extend it 
in the case of Stein v. Tahor, which was before the Court of 
Common Pleas on Monday. A testimonial was given by the 
defendant to the plaintiff, and shortly afterwards difi"erences arose. 
Subsequently the plaintiff applied for and obtained an engage- 
ment, to a certain extent upon the faith of this testimonial. The 
defendant having heard of this withdrew hia testimonial, and the 
plaintiff" lost tlie appointment. It sought to administer inter- 
rogatories to discover tho terms of the letter withdrawing the 
testimonial, an action having been been commenced for libel in 
withdrawing the testimonial. The contention of counsel that tho 
causeless withdrawal of a testimonial is prima facie evidence of 
libel is rather strong, and the court refused the rule on the ground 
that the plaintifl"s affidavit did not, and could not, state positively 
that a libel had been published, and that he had been injured in 

CousTY Court bailiffs, as well as County Court registrars in bank- 
ruptcy, seem to have been exercising their powers somewhat care- 
lessly of late. Wo report two cases to-day, one from Liskoard and 
the other from Yarmouth, in which these officials have seized 
goods which they had no right to seize. In the Liskeard case the 
bailiff received summary justice at the hands of the injured party, 
and sought a remedy against him for assault. Tlie ollicer had not 
sufficiently inquired into the date of a bill of sale : the seizure wasr 
within the twenty-one days, so that registration was not necessjiry, 
and the goods properly belonged to the assignee. In the Yarmouth 
case tho bailiff of the Bury County Court seized the goods of a cab 
proprietor named Eisowood on a judgment at tho suit of ono 
KsowLEs. It turned out that the real debtor was Kisgwood tho 
elder, who was not a cab proprietor in Yarmouth, but his son was. 
The warrant contained no Christian name, and the cab proprietor 
being tho only KixGv.ofiD known to the bailiff, his goods were 
seized. The learned Judge very properly expressed his surprise 
that more care was not exercised in issuing warrants. In this 
case also the bailiff was very nearly tho victim of a violent assault, 
and the only thing which can bo said in his favour is that he ex- 
pressed hia determination to die rather than flinch from his duty. 

It is hardly to be expected that the law will recede from tho 
position which it has of late years assumed in relation to the 
defence of insanity in criminal cases. There can bo no doubt, 
however, that some of our judges are not altogether satisfied on 
the subject, and an American judge h;is recently expressed his 
view in opposition to the, " preponderance of evidence " doctrine. 
Chief Justice "SV.\ll.\ce, of tho Californian Bench, said, in a case 
lately decided, " as to whether a prisoner, relying on the defence 
of insanity at the time of the commission of the act charged against 
him as a crime, may rest upon mere preponderating evidence of 
the fact of in-sanity, or muse go further and establish his alleged 
insanity beyond a reasonable doubt, is a question upon which the 
authorities are in conflict. In view of tho notorious facility with 
wliich this defence is often .ivailed of to shield tho guilty fromjust 

Eunishment, I should, if tho matter were res intregrain tiiis court, 
inclined to adopt the latter rule. But in the case of People v. 
Coffiiian (2t Cal. 200), the question was thoroughly considered 
here, and it was held that insanity might lie established in a 
criminal case by the same amount of evidence by which it might 
be established in a civil action involving the question— that is, by 
mere preponderating evidence; and upon tne authority of that 
case I concur in the judgment in this case." 

Dr. Hardwicke, one of the candidates for tho Coroncrship for 
Central Middlesex, vacant by the death of Dr. Laskkstee, 
has printed and published a circular in which he displays 
a want of knowledge of the nature of the verdicts returned by 
coroners' juries. Cpon this ignorance ho bases some depreciatory 
observations on the claims of lawyers to act as coroners. In this 
circular he says : " A complete knowledge of medical jurisprudence 
involves the study of chemistry and toxicology, which is far re- 
moved from any course of legal education, but which all medical 
men are required to know ere they receive a licence to practise, 
whilst the legal coroner often fails to bring out the full amount of 
medical evidence which an intelligent surgeon is able and willing 
to give. Hence it is that verdicts are returned of 'found 
drowned,' ' found dead,' ' died of natural causes,' ' visitation 
of God,' ' sudden death,' &c. — mere forms of verdicts, wanting 
in tho essential character of a verdict which should express tho 
true canfe of death — tho object of tho inquiry. This is the 
full intention of Legislation and tho carrying out of all re- 
quirements of tho Registration Acts of this country." Now 





[Nov. 14, 1874. 

we are reliably informed that no such verdicts as those here 
indicated are ever returned ; the cause of death always appears on 
the inquisition. Dr. Hardwicke probably based his observations 
upon what he has read in the newspapers, and newspapers doubt- 
less frequently report the finding of verdicts which make no 
mention of the cause of death. The remark that a lawyer fre- 
quently fails to elicit all the evidence which an intelligent 
surgeon is able and willing to give, we must take the liberty of 
disputing. Practice in extracting evidence in every description 
of mquiry is far more calculated to enable a man to conduct an 
investigation into causes of death than any amount of surgical 
knowledge without the legal training. A lawyer aided by a jury 
and " intelligent and wiUing surgeons " is indisputably the most 
efficient tribunal for conducting the business of the coroner. 

A VEEY pretty quarrel is impending between the Midland Railway 
Company on the one hand and a combination of six influentfal 
railway companies on the other. The Midland proposes to reduce 
first class fares 2-5 per cent., to abolish second class fares alto- 
gether, and to issue return tickets of both classes, without restric- 
tions as to the date of the return journey. The combined com- 
panies respectfully request the Midland directors to postpone the 
proposed alteration until after the general half-yearly meetings 
in February next, the whole seven companies to consider in the 
meantime "what change if any should bo made in the conduct of 
the passenger tralfic of the country in the direction of increased 
facilities, with fair regard to the interests of railway proprietors." 
The circular by the Midland chairman protests that the charge of 
entering on a course of ruinous competition is totally unfounded, 
but adds that the directors are not justified in rejecting the change 
"because it may not suit one or more neighbouring companies 
. . . who are, after all, keen competitors with the Midland, not 
mindful, as the last few years have shown, of the interests of 
Midland shareholders." Replying to the objection that the pro- 
posed abolition of second class will reduce the comfort of travel- 
ling, the directors quietly observe that "those persons who have 
hitherto had or desired to have a first class compartment, which 
contains six seats, on the purchase of one or two tickets, have an 
undue advantage over their fellow-passengers." We liave long 
wondered at the extraordinary indulgence showu to the first class 
passenger in this respect, so costly to the companies in increasing 
the dead weight of the trains, and so different from the continental 
system of completely filling the front carriages before the pas- 
senger is allowed to enter those behind. We shall watch the de- 
cision of the Midland company with gi-eat interest, and the result 
of the deliberations of the combined companies with greater 
interest still, esoecially as the great amalgamation scheme of the 
London and North Western and the Lancashire and Yorkshire is 
to be introduced next year. Apropos of the 6 per cent, which a 
correspondent of the Times has recently fixed as the maximum 
profit of railway, we may notice that 6 per cent is the rate in the 
case of the Great Western, and 8 per cent, is the rate in the case 
of the Lancashire andYorkshire, at which, under the Amalgamation 
Acts of those companies, their rates and fares may be revised by 
the Government. We presume that only on similar conditions 
will the London and North Western amalgamation be permitted. 
Otherwise a 10 per cent, dividend may be paid without revision. 
(See 7 & 8 Vict. c. 55, s. 1.) 

The lengthy and considered judgment of Mr. Hannat, upon the 
question of the iond fide traveller can hardly be considered as 
settling the difficulties raised by the Licensing Acts. Travellers 
some three hundred strong presented themselves at the door of a 
pubUc house, on Stamford-hill, one Sunday morning. "Are you 
a traveller ?" " Where do you come from ?" " Did you sleep at 
the address last night," were the questions successively put to 
them. Two hundred and forty persons passed their examination ; 
sixty were plucked. The hospitable publican had however, kept 
the door open, and " stood at the door with his apron on, thereby 
soliciting custom," and it was in this respect that the magistrate 
held that he had " infringed the law," and convicted him. The 
only result of this decision will be that the traveller will have to 
knock at the door before passing his examination. And while he 
is being kept waiting, he will no doubt bethink himself of the 
legal liability of the publican who should refuse to admit him ; 
the rejection of a traveller by an innkeeper being not only 
actionable but indictable (see Six Carpenters' case, 1 Sm. L. C. ; 
B. V. Luellin, 12 Mod. 225; B. v. Ivens, 7 C. & P. 213, Hawk, 
ch. 78; Kirkman v. Shawcross, 5 T. Rep. 17; Thompson v. 
Lacy, 3 B. & Aid. 283. What then is the poor publican to 
do P He is to take reasonable precautions, and if he can prove 
that he has taken such precautions, a clause (sect. 10) of the 
Licensing Act 1874, entitles the justices to " dismiss the case as 
against the defendant." Mr. Hannat remarks that it is difficult 
to say what reasonable precautions are, and wo quite agree with 
him ; only there is no doubt from the wording of the section to 
which we have referred, that whether such precautions have been 
taken or not is a question of fact for the justices in each case, and 
that the burden of proof is upon the publican. In view of the 
many conflicting magisterial decisions that may bo expected on 

the point, which, so far as we can see, can never come to be one of 
law, we would suggest just one more precaution in addition to 
the " three rules," and that is that the publican should display 
conspicuonsly upon his premises that ])ortion of sect. 25 of the 
Act of 1872, by which " every person who by falsely representing 
himself to be a traveller . . . buys, or obtains, or attempts to buy 
or obtain at any premises any intoxicating liquor" during closing 
hours, " shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five pounds." It 
may be remembered too, that justices are empowered by a special 
paragraph of sect. 10 of the Act of 1874, to direct proceedings to 
be taken against " f.ilsely representing themselves to be bona fide 
travellers." We may remark the mala fide traveller was well 
defined by Montague Smith, J., in Peplow v. Bichardson (L. Rep. 
4 Q. B. 168, " to be one whose primary object is tippling, the 
refreshment being not merely ancillary to a lawful purpose" a 
definition which will equally apply to the malii fuie one, whether 
he have walked his three miles under sect. 10 of the Act of 1874, 
or not. 

An application in the Court of the Queen's Bench for a writ of 
haheas corpus, on the part of one Walcot, suggests several remarks 
concerning the power of one of our greatest national safeguards. 
There can be no doubt but that the writ is restrained within much 
narrower territorial limits than it formerly was. At one time a 
writ of habeas corpus issued at Westminster, prevailed every- 
where, without exception, within the Queen's dominions. So 
much so, that not even the town of Calais in France was excepted. 
The accession of James VI. of Scotland to the throne of England, 
did not, however, render Scotland subject to the writ, because 
our Courts have no power to send the writ to foreign dominions, 
which belong to a prince who has succeeded to England. The 
Electorate also is exempt from the writ for the same reason. The 
application in the case we refer to was for a writ directed to the 
Bristol Board of Guardians, and to a certain farmer in Canada,. 
to cause [them to deliver up a young boy to his mother; the boy 
having been sent out to Canada by the guardians under the pro- 
visions of the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 101. It was urged ou behalf o£ 
the applicant that a writ of haheas corpus had been issued to 
Canada as late as 1861, {Re Anderson, 30 L. J., 129 Q. B.), but the 
Court considered that such a power was now efiectnally estopped 
by the enactments^of the 25 & 26 Vict. c. 20 ; and therefore that 
it was not competent to issue the writ against the Canadian 
farmer, while at the same time it was useless to do so against the 
Bristol guardians, since they had not the custody of the boy. 
Mr. Justice Blackburn moreover suggested that the writ of 
habeas coi-pin would review the statutory power of the board. 
The question of how far the effect of the Great Charter may 
be diminished by the 13 & 14 Vict. Ic. 101 is a very serious 
one, and well deserves attention. It is against the policy of our 
constitution that anyone be " exiled," or caused pcrderc patriam. 
The words of the latter statute, it is true, grant power to a board 
of guardians to send out orphan or "deserted" children, under 
certain regulations ; but this power should be jealously watched, 
particularly since the present application shows us the many 
obstacles which present themselves to a mother desiring to- 
recover a child which has been sent away against her will. It 
is, moreover, a question for argument, how far a mother, who 
through poverty is compelled to enter a workhouse, may be 
said to " desert " her child. The remark of the Court, that it 
was useless to issue the writ against the Bristol Board of 
Guardians, since they had not the custody of the boy, should 
not escape observation ; and suggests the question whether the 
fact of having delivered the boy to the Canadian farmer, is an 
answer for the Board to a writ of habeas corpus. For if this be 
law, with respect to a writ of haheas corpus, it certainly is not 
so, with respect to a writ of equal antiquity — the writ of d» 
homine replegiando. If a man in the unlawful custody of another 
be conveyed away out of the jurisdiction of the sheriff of the 
county, the latter may return to this writ that the person is 
eloigned, elongatus, and a capias issues to imprison the defendant 
himself till he produces the party (see Baym. 613). For many 
reasons this writ has been discontinued, the greater excellence 
of the writ of habeas corpus being not one of the least. Without 
entering into the merits of the above application, the perusal of 
the observations on it show that it behoves us to guard vciy 
carefully, lest the scope and effect of such a potent bulwark of 
our liberty as luxheas corpus be farther encroached on by accident 
or by design. 

The decision of the Court of Exchequer Chamber in the case of 
Sowerby v. Smith (31 L. T. Rep. N.S. 309), is of value as 
defining the nature and extent of manorial rights. The qu«- 
tion before the court was whether the lord and lady of a manor in 
Lincolnshire had the right of shooting and taking game on the 
freehold inclosures, which had been allotted under an Inclosnre 
Act, in lieu of rights of common enjoyed by the allottees in th* 
waste lands of the manor, before the passing of the Act. By this 
Act certain of the rights of the manor were reserved ; but there 
was no reservation of the exact rights claimed by the plaintiffs ; 
accordingly it remained for the court to decide whether the rights 

Digitized by 


Nov. 14, 1874.] 



xn dispnte formed an integral part of manorial rigbts. The case 
of JSwart T. Graham (7 H. of L. Caa. 331), decided in 1869, was 
Btrongly insisted upon as supporting the plaintiff's claim. There 
an affirmative answer was given to the following question pro- 
posed to the judges by the Lohd Chanceixob (Lord Cahpbbix) : 
»ir Jakes Graham, at the time of the passinie: of the Inclosare 
.A.ct, having been the owner of the soil of the Bailey Hope pastnre, 
and having had by virtue of that ownership (bat not otherwise) 
anB exclusive right of hunting, shooting, fishing, and fowling over 
Hhe said pastnre, was he, after the inclosare had been completed, 
entitled to the right of banting, shooting, fishing, and fowling 
over allotments made to the owners of lands within the manor? 
It will be noticed that this answer does not really touch the 
question at issue in the present case ; indeed Lord Campbell says 
custinctly, " The right which had existed in the lord is here 
reserved. It is said that this is to be confined to such rights as 
■were manorial rights, incident and belonging to the manor. This 
is not so." There are other dicta bearing upon the case. "An 
idea prevails," says Baron Mamin, in Bruce v. HelUujeU 
(2 L. T. Eep. N.S. 292 ; 5 H. & N. 609), that lords of manors have a 
right and liberty of hawking, hunting, coursing, fishing, and fowl- 
ing, analogous to that of free »»arren or freechase. But the notion is 
erroneous. They have no such right." Mr. Justice Batlet likewise 
refers to the prevalence of a similar belief. The opinion of Sir Alex. 
CocKBUBN is sufficiently clear. The allotted land is freehold, and 
as such it confers all rights which flow from the enjoyment of 
freehold land, unless the provisions of the Act militate against 
such rights. But the Act must be construed strictly; in that 
case the only rights reserved to the owner of the manor are those 
that " were of a memorial character," that is to say, were in the 
lord qua lord of the manor, and not as owner of the soil of the 
■wastes." His Lordship distinguishes this case from that ot Ewarl 
V. Oraham, consistently with the distinction then drawn by Lord 
Cajipbell. The case of Greathead v. Morley (3 M. & G. 139) is 
certainly a very strong authority against the plaintiffs here. 
liOrd Chief Justice Tindal, in his decision in that case, brought 
out very strongly the fact that the right of the lord of a manor to 
bunt or shoot over the uninclosed commons within his own manor, 
■was a " licence or liberty " incident to him as a lord, and not '• a 
mode of direct enjoyment of his own property." Applying this 
reasoning to the fact before him, the learned judge observed that 
" by the Act the allotment is to extinguish all rights or interests 
in the soil, with an express reservation of manorial rights only." 
A majoritv of the judges agreed with Sir Alex. Cockbubn, and 
it was held, afBrmicg tho judgment of the Court of Common 
Pleas, that the rights claimed not being manorial rights, did not 
■vest in the owner of the manor. Looking aside from the purely 
legal questions at issue, it must be admitted to be desirable that 
any lands which are invested with the character of freehold lands 
by an Enclosure Act, should be as little hampered with restrictions 
upon their enjoyment as the nature of the case will admit. 

A QUESTION of the greatest possible importance to both branches of 
the Profession and of momentous interest to the Bur was brought 
before the Court of Common Pleas on Tuesday last, on the argument 
of a rule calling upon an eminent firm of solicitors to show cause 
■why the master's taxation of a bill of costs delivered by them to 
a cUent should not be reviewed. No report that we are aware of 
has appeared in the daily papers, although the court daring the 
argument was crowded by members of the Bar, and remarks were 
made by Lord Coleridob and Mr. Justice Bbbtt having a most 
important bearing upon the relation of solicitors to counsel and 
the present system of paying — frequently we regret to say a 
system of not paying — counsel. 

The facts as reported to us were these. The solicitors in ques- 
tion were employed by a gentleman who is a litigant well known 
to the courts in Westminster HalL At length the latter saw fit to 
change his solicitors, and on those whom he had employed 
delivering to him their bill of costs, he submitted it to tax- 
ation. During the progress ' of the taxation he objected to 
a Bum of between £30 and £40 fees alleged to have been 
paid to counsel, but which, although the work was done 
some three years before, had not been paid. The master was 
asked to disallow these items altogether ; he, however, declined to 
do BO, bat adjourned the taxation to allow counsels' briefs endorsed 
as paid to be produced. Hereupon the client applied to the court 
and obtained a rule against the solicitors. In this particular case 
it anpeared that the bulk of counsels' fees had been paid, and those 
unpaid were so left owing to some irregularity in the books of the 
Bohcitors. The rule was discharged, but withoat costs. 

The observations made by members of the court are, as we have 
Bud, of great importance to the Profession. Lord Coleridce com- 
mented upon the evil likely to result from eminent solicitors 
charging clients with fees which had not been paid, for the reason 
that clients, trusting to the integrity and accuracy of professional 
men in such a position, would not, as a rule, subject their bills of 
costs to taxation. This is an aspect of the question which is cer- 
tainly of moment to the public, for if solicitors of eminence pursue 
the objectionable course of withholding fees for long perioda fix>mi 

counsel, and eventually obtaining payment without having paid 
counsel, professional men of inferior position might well feel 
encouraged in depriving counsel of all remuneration for services 
which are of the utmost value to the suitor. 

Mr. Justice Bbett, we are informed, said that be considered that 
the existing system is objectionable — that at given periods the 
solicitor should send a list of fees to counsel, and should not look 
to counsel's clerk to ask for payment. We believe it was argued 
by counsel for the solicitors in the case under notice that it was 
the fault of counsel's clerk that the fees bad not been paid. But 
assuredly when the bill of costs was made out it ought to have 
been known whether the fees had been paid to counsel. 

We refer to this subject in the true interests of solicitors, and 
we would remind them that the complaints which are nowadays 
so reaiiily launched against barristers of neglecting cases must 
sound ill in the mouths of those who think lightly of allowing 
counsel to remain for years unpaid, and indeed unpaid altogether. 
It is obviously unjust to suggest that counsel should see that 
their clerks get in fees due. Applications of this nature are most 
ungracious, considering the relations in which the two branches 
stand to each other, and they cannot fail to be the causae, occa- 
sionally at least, of a breach of business connection. Solicitors 
expect the Bar to attend to its work, and they should in eveiy 
way insist upon it. Members of the Bar, on the other hand, 
expect to be paid for their labours, and naturally look to the most 
eminent members of the solicitors' branch of the profession to set 
a good example to their less distinguished brethren. 

Two cases have come before Sir James Bacon during the past week, 
which show that some of the CouEty Courts are making bad work 
of their bankruptcy jurisdiction. It is a startling circumstance 
that two adjudications by County Courts should have been dis- 
charged — in the one case on the ground that the registrar, 
although he had notice of the debtor s intention to dispute the 
petitioning creditors debt, and was informed by telegram that 
his solicitor and counsel were on their way to the court, had never- 
theless made the adjudication in their absence ; and in the other 
case, on the ground that although the debtor had made a general 
affidavit verifying the petition, no evidence had been given at the 
hearing of the debt, the trading, and the act of bankruptcy. 
There was positively no proof of any of these requisites, although 
by his petition the creditor pledged himself to prove them. 
Nevertheless an adjudication was made. 

The first case here referred to was- that of Ex parte Phillipt, re 
Phillipg, the proceedings having been taken in the Croydon 
County Court. The petition for adjudication was appointed to 
be heardat twelve oclock, at the "Registrar's Office, Croydon, 
and notice was given by the debtor disputing the petitioning 
creditor's debt. The debtor's counsel ana solicitor had intended 
to travel from London by a train supposed to leave at ten minutes 
before twelve, and reaching Croydon at about ten minutes past 
that hour, but upon their arrival at the terminus it was discovered 
that the train m question had been discontinued. They imme- 
diately despatched a telegram to the Registrar, stating that they 
were upon the way, and requesting that the case might stand over 
for a few minutes imtil the arrival of counsel. The Registrar waited 
until about twenty minutes past twelve, when he proceeded to bear 
the petition, and being satisfied that the requisites were duly proved, 
made an adjudication. At thirty-two minutes past the hour ap- 
pointed for the hearing, the debtor's counsel and solicitor reached 
the office, and, finding what had occurred, asked that the matter 
might be reheard, but the Registrar declined, unless by consent of 
the petitioning creditor. 

It is really astounding that there should have been an adjudica- 
tion under such circumstances, and the remarks of the Chief 
Judge would, one must imagine, have suggested themselves to 
anyone not carried away by extraneous and foreign circum- 
stances. His Lordship said : " Nothing could be more plain than 
that there was a sincere intention on the part of the debtor to dis- 
pute the adjudication. That fact was communicated by telegram 
to the Registrar, who had reason to believe that the parties were 
on the way for the purpose. It would be contrary to reason and 
justice that a debtor should be excluded from that right which the 
statute gave him of disputing an adjudication. On the receipt of 
the telegram the Registrar was apprised of the intention to dis- 
pute, and, notwithstanding, he pursued an almost unprecedented 

The second ease (Ex parte lAndeay, re Lindsay) came from the 
Newcastle-upon-Tyne County Court, and the facts were these : On 
the 18th Aug. last a meeting was held of the creditors of the appel- 
lant, a shipbuilder at Newcastle, when a composition of 9s. in the 
pound was offered, and further proceedings were adjourned. Two 
days afterwards Mr. R. S. Procter, a creditor for ISOOi., presented 
a petition for adjudication of bankruptcy against the appellant, 
containing allegations of the petitioning creditor's debt, the 
trading, and a general allegation that, " being a trader, be had 
made a fraudulent conveyance, gift, delivery, or transfer of his pro- 
perty or of part thereof. Annexed to the petition was the usual 
formal affidavit, verifying the statements contained in it ~ 

Digitized by 




[Nov. 14, 1874. 

appeared that the petition was served upon the appellant, and 
a receiver iippointed. The appellant handed the petition to 
his solicitors, who attended the original hearing, appointed for 
the 31st August, when, according to their statements, it was 
arranged, at the request of the petitioning creditor, that the peti- 
tion should not be proceeded with that day, and the appellant, by 
his solicitors, consented to an adjournment, subject to their being 
informed of the adjourned hearing before anything further should 
be done. The debtor's solicitors alleged that they heard nothing 
more of the matter until after the 7th Sept., when it was ascer- 
tained that an adjudication had been made by the Deputy- 
Registrar in the absence of the appellant and his solicitors, and 
without a7iy evidence being adduced in support of the allegations 
contained in the petition. On apjieal the order of adjudication 
was discharged, the proceedings being characterised by the Chief 
Judge as altogether irregular. It is much to be regretted that 
country registrars should thus blunder over the A B C of bank- 
ruptcy. In Lindsay's case, indeed, the Judge seems to have 
delegated his powers to the deputy registrar. If Judges will do 
this miscarriages are matters of certainty. More care must be 
manifested in County Courts in future if they are to retain the 
little confidence which they now possess. 


Rules or Court. 

iContinued from page 445, Vol. LVII.) 

Okder XXI.— Defence. 

The general rule as to the time of delivery of defences is that 

they must be delivered within eight days from the delivery of 

the statement of claim, or from the time limited for appearance, 

whichever shall be the last, and, where no statement of claim is 

required, within eight days from appearance. Power is given to 

the court or judge to extend the time. Where leave is given to 

defend under Rule 7 of the schedule to the Act, the defence must 

be delivered within the time named in the order, or, if no time be 

named, within eight days after the order. 

No actual form of defence is given, either by description in 
the rules, or in the schedules to those rules, but one very import- 
ant feature of a defence is indicated by the fourth 'rule of this 
order. Where a fact is stated in the statement of claims, it must 
be admitted or denied by the defence ; and that a mere general 
denial of facts stated will not be taken as sufficient is evident, 
because it is expressly provided that where allegations of fact, 
denied or not admitted, ought, in the opinion of the court, to have 
been admitted, the court may make an order for the payment of 
any extra costs occasioned by those allegations being denied or not 
admitted. This will compel defendants to consider carefully what 
allegations of fact in a plaintiff's statement are true, and to admit 
those statements which he cannot contradict. This, coupled with 
the provision disous.sed in a former order (Order XVIII.), show 
that a defence must deal specifically with every material fax!t 
alleged in a plaintiff's statement, in addition to alleging such 
facts as are material to the defendant's own case. 

Counter claims are provided for in point of form by this order, 
where they relate to the plaintiff along with other persons. In 
such cases the defendant must entitle his defence not only with 
the names of the plaintiff and defendant, but must add another 
title, similar to the title in a statement of complaint, setting out the 
names of all the persons who, if such counter claims were to be 
enforced by cross action, would be defendants to such cross 
action, and must deliver his defence to such of them as he 
thereby makes parties to the action within the period within 
which he is required to deliver it to the plaintiff. The rule 
itself says (Rule 5) that he must deliver his defence " to such of 
them as ai'e parties to the action." This we should think is a 
mistake, and it was intended to be "to such of them as are 
thereby made parties to the action." Service of this defence and 
counter-claim will act as a summons to appear when served upon 
a person not a party to the action, and the defence must be 
indorsed with a notice to appear in the form given in Sche- 
dule B (Form 4) to the rules. It is also expressly provided that 
tiny person not a defendant to the action who is served with a 
defence and counter-claim must appear thereto, as if he had been 
served with a writ of summons to appear in an action. The 
effect of these rules is to give a defendant every facility for having 
all matters in difference between himcelf and the plaintiff settled 
in one action, even though his claim against the plaintiff may 
be in respect of a liability which the plaintiff has incurred jointly 
with other people. Thus, for instance, A. sues B. for goods sold 
and delivered; A. C. and D. are jointly indebted to B. for money 
lent. It is manifestly advantageous to B. that he should be able 
to set off his claim against A. C. and D. against A.'s claims against 
himself, because he gets the whole dispute settled at once, ana A. is 
stopped from getting payment for the goods from B. whilst he, A., 
owes B. money. This may be done under the new procedure. It 
is difficult however to see why the only person, served with a 
defence or counter claim, who is exempted from entering an 
appearance thereto is a defendant. The reason why a defendant 
need not enter an appearance is clearly because he has already 

made himself amenable to the jurisdiction of the court by enter- 
ing an appearance in the action, or he may bo proceeded against 
by default. But why should a plaintiff enter an appearance to a 
counter-claim ? He is already before the court ; it is his act which 
in the first instance originates the whole proceedings. It does not 
seem to be so reasonable to require a plaintiff to enter an appearance 
as it would be to require a defendant. It would be suflficient to 
provide that the plaintiff should indicate by his reply whether he 
admitted or disputed the defendant's counter-claim. 

Where a counter-claim is made, the reply becomes in effect a 
defence, and must be delivered within the usual time for the 
delivery of defences; and any person named in a defence as a 
party to a counter-claim may deUver a reply within that time. 
From the great latitude which is given by the Act and the rules to 
defendants in the raising of counter claims, it is evident that 
numerous instances will arise where defendants will make counter 
claims which cannot practically be tried as one action with plain- 
tiff's claims. Such cases are provided for by a rule (Rule 9), 
whereby a plaintiff, or any person made a party to a counter- 
claim, deeming that the two claims ought to be tried in indepen- 
dent actions, may apply to the court or a Judge for an order for the 
exclusion of the counter-claim ; and the court or Judge will have 
power to make such order as shall be just, which, of course, 
amounts to power to make any order the court or Judge may see 
fit to make. 

The practice of the Court of Probate as to the liability of defen- 
dants in costs where they have given notice that they require a 
will to be proved in solemn form, and intend only to cross-examine 
the plaintiffs' witnesses, is continued, and it is therefore unneces- 
sary to call attention more particularly to the practice on this 
point. The rule is almost identical in terms with Rule 41 of the 
rules relating to contentious business in Her Majesty's Conrt of 

Order XXII. — Reply axd subsequent Pleadings. 
The time for the deliverj' of replies is fixed at three weeks after 
the delivery of the defence, or last of the defences if there are 
more defendants than one, power being given to the court or 
Judge to extend that time. This provision is, we presume, subject 
to the rules of the forjner order providing for counter-claims, and 
must be taken to apply only to those cases in which there are no 
counter-claims. It would be as well that this difference in prac- 
tice should be expressed clearly in the rules, and that the first 
rule of this order should provide for the time of delivery of repliM, 
" except in cases where a counter-claim has been delivered." This 
would avoid all chonoo of misunderstanding. 

It is intended by the rules that the reply shall be the last plead- 
ing, except in cases whore special leave shall be obtained from the 
court or Judge, and where leave is given it will be subject to 
terms such as the Judge may think fit to impose. Subject to the 
obtaining of leave, all pleadings subsequent to reply must be 
delivered within four days after the deUvery of the previous plead- 
ing, unless the time bo extended by the court or a Judge. The 
object of these rules is clearly to prevent unnecessary technicali- 
ties, and to compel parties to state the facts on which they rely in 
the statement and defence, so that the trial may take place as soon 
as possible after the pleadings are completed. It is not often that 
there is any necessity to go beyond a reply, and when any subse- 
quent pleading is used, it is generally for the purposes of delay. 

Order XXIII. — Close op Pleadings. 
Joinder of issue without other pleading closes the pleadiofMi 
and no further pleading can take place between the parties. It 
must not, however, be supposed from this that a defendant may 
by way of defence simply join issue on the plaintiff's statement ol 
claim. The rules require more than this ; the defence must 
contain the statement of fact on which the defendant relies, and 
the rules as to joinder of issue can only be taken to apply to 
pleadings subsequent to the defence. 



We have been favoured with a long letter from Mr. 
respecting the review of a pamphlet of his upon the Railway 
Passenger Duty (London : Effingham Wilson, Royal Exchange), 
which appeared in our issue of the 24th ult. Mr. Porter com- 
plains of the general tendency of our remarks, replies specifically 
to five of our strictures, distinguishes AliorneyGeneral v. WorcetUr 
and Wolverhampton liaUway Company (6 L. T. Rep. N. S. 29)» 
which he states was not referred to by the Court of Exchequer in 
their recent judgment), and points out, which we fully admit, that 
he had consulted numerous otherauthorities besides Vattel, Puffen- 
dorf, Domat, Thibaut, and Rutherf urd, and repeats the argument of 
his pamphlet at such length, that we regret that we cannot find 
space for his letter. We would remind Mr. Porter that we said that 
he had taken a great deal of trouble, and we are happy to have tne 
opportunity of saying so again. But we thought his pamphlet a 
very bad one, and we think so still. Whether AHomeyQeneral'r. 
Worcester and Wolverhamptmi Railway Company is distinguishable 
or not, it was, we think, inexcusable in a legal writer not to '''''®' ^ 
it. We extract a portion of the headnote to the report of tna» 
case : " Inasmuch as the defendants claimed the benefit of an ex-j- 

Jigitized by 


ISToY. 14, 1874.J 



emption from a daty granted in very clear terms, it was for them 
tiO bring themselves precisely within the terms creating the exemp- 
■fcion." Mr. Porter concludes by stating that " he derives mnoh 
oonsolation from the fact, that his pamphlet has not been 
adversely commented npon except in the La.w Thees ; but, on the 
contrary, has been very fovoorably reviewed in railway, financial, 
and other newspapers — ejusdem generU, we presume. 

OommenUme* upon IrUemaUondl Law. By Sib Boberi Phiixi- 
KOBE, D-C.L., Judge of the High Court of Admiralty. Yol.IY., 
Second Edition. London : Butterworth. 
Ills Hniversallyrecognifled as extremely desirable that the relations 
of nations to each other should be regelated and governed by prin- 
ciples settled beyond the reach of discussion. In no branch of 
jurisprudence is the want of a code more generally felt, and there 
are many who believe that such a code might be framed without 
xnuch dimculty. The materials for codification must be found to a' 
large extent in our first-class text writers. We say materials only, 
for we believe that one class of mind is required for writing a 
disqaiaition, and quite another .class for sifting and settling prin- 
ciples. The codifier requires to see mapped out before him the 
plain apon which jurists nave contended, and upon which judges 
riave erected their own views and displayed their own conclusions. 
Without the ability to take a comprehensive grasp of what is 
exhibited before him, the codifier had far better abandon any 
attempt to settle principles. To a man who is so capable, we 
shoald say that in the province of International Law he could find 
no better coadjator thwi Sir Bobert Phillimore. 

We have, within a short period, briefly noticed the previons 
volumes of the important work of which the fourth volume is now 
before us. We have more than once recognised the ability and 
profound research which the learned author has brought to bear 
npon the subject ; but this last volume strikes us as perhaps the 
most able and lucid ; and in addition to these merits, it deals with a 
division of international jurisprudence which is of veiy great interest, 
namely, private Lntemational law or comity. The familiar phrase, 
jua gentium, suggests to the jurist several considerations. First, 
What is jus ? Secondly, to whom, and under what circumstances, 
may it attach P Thirdly, what is an infringement of it; and, lastly, 
what is the mode of redress ? Sovereignty, united with domain. 
Sir B. Ptullimore has already stated, establishes, as a fundamental 
rule of international law, the exclusive jurisdiction of a State over 
all persons, acts, and things within its territories. There is no 
ooontry now into whioh foroienera are not allowed to enter and to 
claim as such the protection of the State. This jus of tbe forelener 
being invaded, the State must give redress. " A refusal of re£o8S 
in such cases " (i. e., by iU usage, or by a denial of justice), " would 
be a justifiable cause of war." This short statement of one of the 
principles of international law, shows out of what small ofienoes 
most oisastrous wars may spring. And surely here we find ground 
upon which arbitration might take root and nourish. The regard 
which a sovereign State entertains towards its subjects is a magni- 
ficent consequence of the congregation of human families in 
nations. Much has already been done by the comity of nations 
to show the greatest respect to this sentiment, and codes have 
been framed in the European States expressly with the view to 
secure to the foreigner all the privileges perttuning to the native 
of the State. The Prussian code, which may be taken as a g;ood 
example, contains an express acknowledgment that the foreigner 
has a right to the same administration of justice as the native. 
The Austrian law resembles the Prussian in this respect. 

At the outset of Sir Bobert's treatise he exhibits to us a diffi- 
cult question — What are the limits assigned by the }\u gentium 
privatum to the operation of. the laws of one State witlun the terri- 
tory of another P The consideration of this question suggests the 
fiirther consideration of the maimer in which the judges of par- 
ticular States should deal with foreign law. Sir B. Phillimore is 
of opinion that the State ought to permit its judge to treat the 
foreign law as one of the sources from which, in the particular 
case before him, he is to derive justice. It would occupy too much 
space to follow out this very interesting branch of international 
law, and we must content ourselves with saying that the student 
will find it very clearly handled in the pages of our author 
(pp. 11 to 20). 
This being a second edition, it may x>erhaps suffice to recall 

Erevions criticisms on the work if we briefly detail its plan. The 
rst chapter as we have said deals with definitions and distino- 
tioDS in jus gentium and jus inter gentes. The second chapter 
treats of the udividaal and the status which he acquires under the 
laws of a particular territory, which involves the discussion of the 
meaning of the terms " Origo " and " Domicil." These two terms, 
however, are made the subjects of separate chapters (UI and lY). 
There is ample authority for saying that questions of domicil are 
attended witn great difficulty. This difficulty will probably always 
lemain, and is only to be reduced in magnitude by the discussions 
of inrists and the occurrence of particular cases. It is as our 
aatW explains primarily a question of fact, and the principles 
which should prevail are drawn from the civil and canon laws : of 
these laws Sir B. Phillimore is a master, and in his fourth chapter 
he gives us learned definitions. In his fifth he discusses 

whether a man can have two domicils. And here we will 
venture to say that we think our author exhibits some 
timidity. We have said that a codifier requires capacity to take 
a comprehensive view of the vast field which stretches before 
him. It strikes us that Sir B. Phillimore, whilst possessing great 
industry and much learning, has not largely developed the 
critical faculty. He is too prone to foist into his text the words 
of other writers, evidently preferring this safe course to giving us 
his own independent reading. The fifth chapter is a good exem- 
plification of this. To the remarks of one writer he adds the 
remarks of another, and thus builds up his pag>es, and in no part 
of the work do we detect original ana discriminating criticism of 
the highest order. It is for this reason that Sir a. Phillimore, 
both as an author and a judge, has failed to attain the highest 
position. He is admitted to be an able collator, or perhaps com- 
mentator — a careful compiler of authorities, and being by educa- 
tion intimately acquainted with the civil and canon law, he is 
never at a loss for materials. 

The examination of the law of domicO, and its peculiarities, 
essentials, and exceptions, employs our author until he reaches his 
16th chapter, when he proceeds to deal with jtis personarum, in 
the first place treating of status. This is a very interesting divi- 
sion of the work, but the bald style of the author makes it diffi> 
cult reading. In his 20th chapter is discussed the miscellaneous 
incidents to marriage, and therein of the important subject of 
divorce and the operations of foreign sentences. A considerable 
portion of the volume is devoted to the law of obliga- 
tions, and at the Slst chapter we arrive at a disquisition 
on maritime law, where Sir B. Phillimore is thoroughly 
at home. To the ordinary English lawyer, however, it will be 
found of little practical value — it is overl<»ded with learning. As 
a good illustration, we would refer to p. 633, where our author, we 
wUl not say discusses, but quotes, authorities on the power of a 
shipmaster to bind his owners by his contract. Indeed, the divi- 
sion of this volume which deals with Lex Mercatoria, by no means 
commends itself to us as a lucid exposition of most important laws. 
Here, again, we find our author citmg cases instead of giving their 
effect and laying down plain principles. The best specimen of his 
work, in our opinion, tnll be found in chap. 46, which is a dear 
exposition of the force and effect of foreign judgments. 

We have, however, gone into the work at sufficient length. The 
issue of a second edition proves that it has attained a position of 
authority, and is favourably received by international jurists. We 
have indicated what we conceive to be its defects lying on the sur- 
face. We have no grounds for impugning its accuracy, and as a 
compilation it mnat raoei ve our acknowledgment that it is able and 
learned. That it will do much to simplSy international law we 
doubt very much. 

The Indian Code of Orimindl Procedure. By Fendaix Cubbiz, 
Esq., of Lincoln's-inn, Barrister-at-Law, City Magistrate of 
Lucknow. London : John Plack and Co., 3, Warwick-court, 
This is a fifth edition ; and we have already had occasion to com- 
ment on the excellent character of the work done by Mr. Currie. 
To enter upon an analytical examination of the code would be of 
very little mterest to our readers, and it would be really necessary 
to do this if we wished to illustrate fully the merits of our author. 
Necessarily he has been confined to annotation. The sections of 
the code are printed in bold type, and Mr. Currie's notes follow 
in small type. We have looked through some of the annotations, 
and we find Mr. Currie thoroughly comprehending the principles 
of the Code and the practice under it. Perhaps we could hardly 
give him higher praise than by saying that what the late Mr. 
Oke did for English criminal law that he has done for the Indiaa 
Penal Code. 

The general reader, however, will find the introduction to this 
work of much interest. It is entitled " A Brief Historical Sketch 
of the Code of Criminal Procedure," and we are glad to receive 
the testimony that " the law of procedure as now enacted, puts an 
end to many abuses and technicalities, and greatly simplifies the 
procedure of the criminal courts. Artificial assumptions of tech- 
nical shadows (whatever that may mean), and obviously absurd 
fictions, find no shelter under the plain and straightforward lan- 
guage of the code, and it makes a clean sweep of quibbles." This 
18 very high praise of a criminal code. 

A Treatise on Extraordinary Remedies, embracing Mandamus, 
Quo Warranto, and Prohibtiion. By James L. High. Chicago: 
Gallaghaa and Co. London : Stevens and Haynes. 
Ub. High is quite right when he says that no single treatise 
covers the ground wmch he now occupies, " no previons writer 
having ever attempted a treatise npon either of the subjects here 
embraced, which should be founded npon and include the result 
of all the English and American decisions." On this score the 
book is welcome, and we think that American jurisprudence has 
attained to such excellence, and has been built up by men of vast 
learning whose successors have proved most worthy, that it is 
impossible to write a text book on a branch of law common to 
both countries without citing the legal decisions in both countries. 
Another merit in Mr. High's work is that " following the indac^-" — 

Digitized by 




rXov. 14, 1874. 

method ho has endeavoured to group and generalise the results 
of his iuvestigations, so as to ascertain the governing principles 
underlying all the decisions, and to state these in the text with as 
much brevity as seemed consistent with clearness." 

The plan of our author is to take the various extraordinary 
remedies which arc embraced in his treatise, treat them first 
historically and then practically. For example, in treating of 
mandamus, he describes the origin and nature of the writ. This 
is followed by the process applicable to questioning the title and 
possession of offices. His English authorities are not brought 
down to the latest period which might have been anticipated in 
a work published in 1874 ; but his references are reasonably com- 
plete. On the subject of mandamus to inferior courts he is 
valueless to the English practitioner, the procedure in England 
as regards County Courts being by prohibition. Neither under 
mandamus nor under prohibition, do we find any reference to the 
famous case of E.b parte Jolliffc so nearly afl'ecting the powers and 
jurisdiction of inferior courts. This necessarily leads up to the 
remark that the work preponderates largely in American authori- 
ties, and we could hardly venture to say that English lawyers 
could safely abandon Tapping on Mandamus, and authors on 
cognate subjects, although embodied in comprehensive works in 
favour of Mr. High. Nevertheless, as the work of an American, 
the ti'eatise under notice is one of the best which we have met 

The Ileal Prnpertrf Acts 1874, with Explanatory Notes. By W. T. 

Ch.\eu;y, D.C.L., M.P., Barrister-at-Law. London : Sweet. 
Tms little work comprises the provisions of the Leases and Sales 
of Settled Estates Amendment Act, the False Personation Act, 
the Powers Law Amendment Act, the Real Property Limitation 
Act, and the Vendors and Purchasers Act; a table of cases cited 
or referred to by the author, a reproduction of many Parlia- 
mentary utterances by members of the Profession in both Houses 
in regard to the measures in question, and, though last, not least, 
an useful index arranged separately for each Act of Parliament. 

We are confirmed in our opinion that the work is only intended to 
serve n present want by the author's own statement in his 
preface. It will be found serviceable to the practitioner until 
the publication of a more complete ana exhaustive com- 
mentary. We regret that a minute examination of the several 
provisions of the five Acts in question should have induced a 
member of the Legislature to observe, in the preface of this book, 
that " it seemed desirable to accompany the new statutes with 
such explanatory notes as might tend to elucidate their ineaning 
and set forth their objects." Assuming this to be a correct view 
of the legislation embodied in the work before us, we are forced 
to admit that it is rather the rule than the exception, that this 
should bo required in connection with the legislation of recent 

We have received the second edition of Mr. Isdermauk's very 
useful Epitome of Leading Conveyancing and Equitij Case* 
(Stevens and Haynes). The work is very well done. 

Also we have to acknowledge the second edition of Messrs. 
Lely and Foulkes's Licensing Acts oj 1829, 1869, and 1872— ISTl 
(Henry Sweet and Stevens and Sons). The reading of the Acts 
contained in this volume is lucid, whilst it is exhaustive. It is 
hardly satisfactory to hear the authors express the opinion that 
the now statute law rather increases than diminishes the difficulty 
of the subject, as it makes no attempt at consolidation, but merely 
adds one more to the Licensing Acts. 

We have received a copy of a new monthly legal publication 
entitled The Law. What possible object is to be served by 
issuing in pamphlet form half a dozen milk and water articles on 
worn-out topics, such as the Unanimity of Juries, and the Bills of 
Sale Act 18o4, and the effect of the Judicature Act, we confess 
ourselves unable to determine. The only other legal monthly 
publication is a conspicuous failure, and we cannot suppose that 
anyone will by purchase encourage The Law to prolong a vain 
struggle for existence. 


A sOLiciToa writes complaining thsit, having a 
judgment in the Superior Court at WoBtminster 
against the debtor of a client, and anch debtor 
having gone to Ireland after the servico of the 
writ of enmmona, bat before jadgment signed, 
he oonsidcra the means of enforcing payment on 
such jadgment do not offer Bofficient facilities in 
cnch a case, and reqaesting ns to call attention to 
the matti-r. Our correBpondent most surely have 
overlooked the proviaiona of 31 & 32 Vict. c. &1 
(Judgment Extension Act), which aecma to offer 
every facility that can possibly be desired. The 
jadgment in the English Coort has only to be 
registered in the Iriah Court of Common Pleas, 
and a writ of jleri Jiclas, or a judgment sum- 
mons can at once issae from the latter court. 

It is only here and there wo hear of demands 
lor the appointment of stipendiary magistrates, 
and even when heard it is a cry often raised by 
a faction for some ulterior pnrpoee, or in conse- 
quence of pome temporary perturbation of the 
public mind. From a return made to the House 
of Commons, of the places in England and Wales 
having stipendiary magistrates, it appears that 
these anpoiutmonta are not on the increase. The 
26427 Vict. c. 97, empowers the governing bodies of 
corporations, cities, towns, and boroughs of 25.000 
inhabitants and upwards to appoint stipendiary 
magistrates, the preamble states that the exeon- 
tion of the ottice of justice of the peace within 
populona cities and places had become diilioalt and 
burdensome, on account not only of the great and 
increasing population, bat because of the difficult 
and important legal qaestions that arise ; and 
further, that there was good reason to believe 
that these cities and placea would seoare the 
services of stipendiary magistrates, being barris- 
ters of five years' standing, for the more speedy 
and effectual execution of the office of magistrate, 
the bett<'r protection of the persons and proper- 
ties of the inhabitants, and the advantage of the 
public. The return above referred to, shows that 
the cities and boroughs whose magistrates had 
found their office too difficult and burdensome, 
amount in all to six, including the Government 
towns of Chatham and Sheernoaa. An Act, 2 & 3 
Vict. c. 71, providea that twenty-aeven magia- 
ratea might be appointed to the metropolia, which 
incladed suburban districts now under justices of 

of the peace. We find, however, only twenty. three 
magistrates appointed to the metropolis. There 
had been, previous to 1863, nine stipendiary 
magistrates appointed ander the proviaiona of the 
5 & C Will. 4, 0. 76, a. d'J, at salaries from XlSOOto 
.iSUOOayear. From a profosaional point of view this 
report is not encouraging, bat it must be frankly 
admitted that, having regard to the class of busi- 
ness usually diepoaed of in petty seasiona, a lay- 
man of ordinary intelligence, aasisted by a compe- 
tent aolicitor aa magistrates' clerk, and moreover 
in more difficult cases often also by profesaional 
men on the part of the parties concerned, ia fully 
competent to discharge satisfactorily the duties 
appertaining to the office of magistrate. Tliere 
seems no prospect of the Stipendiary Magistrates 
Act being made use of in other than very excep- 
tional cases. 

It ia euggested to us by a London solicitor that 
the operation of the Judicature Act will in great 
part remove that condition of things which jua- 
tilicd or called for the extra duty of ^3 payable 
on the certificates of London practitioners, and 
that the council of the Incorporated Law Society 
ought, BO soon as the new Act is in operation, to 
secure the passing of an enactment assimilating 
the certificate duty payable on all solicitors' 
oertifioates to practise. 

There is a very large amount of business in 
the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Courts atill un- 
diapoaed of, and which has to bo dealt with under 
the earlier Bankruptcy Acts. A case has recently 
come to our knowledge in which some years back 
an order was made in the cose of the bankruptcy 
of a naval officer directing the Paymaster-General 
to withhold from such officer's pay annually a 
specified sum until the creditors were paid 6e. 8d. 
in the pound; and at length the bankrupt gives 
notice to the Paymaster-General that no farther 
deductions shoold be made from his pay, upon 
this the official assignee takoa alarm and an appli- 
cation is at once made with a view of securing 
farther paymenta out of the bankrupt's pay. 
Again, notwithstanding this great lapse of time, 
no taxation of costs has taken place and tbe 
delay, in great part unnecessary, will tend to 
increase the coat for taxation. It ia manifeatly 
unjust that a bankrupt so circumstanced should 
be at the mercy of official and creditors' assignees 
I or the solicitor of the one or the other, in regard 

to when the acooants shall bo finally audited and 
closed. On the subject of taxation of costs it 
shoald be said that the system in the bankroptoy 
officea is on all fuurs, aa regards delay, with that 
which obtains in the Chancery taxing offices, an 
appoiutmeut obtained to-day would be for, at 
leadt, a month hence. The way in which taxations 
of costs in common law matters are disposed of, 
is fur more expeditious and satisfactory. It is to 
be hoped that when the rules under the Judica. 
ture Act are in full working order, a better state 
of things in this respect will be found to exist. 

A CORRESPONDENT Writes that he considers i 
would be a great boon if some measure ooold be 
adopted, or some order made, dealing with tlM 
lirge mass of Chancery salts and proceedisgt 
which have been almost, and in very many oases 
quite, at a standstill for many years ; that they will 
ever be disposed of in the ordinary coarse, seeing 
perfectly hopeless. Costs to an enormous amaont 
remain untaxed, and funds are in coort to which, 
in many cases, necessitous beneficiaries are 
entitled. Many of these suits have been always 
in the liands of Chancery clerks only, and as one 
such clerk supersedes another, so the facts con. 
nected with, and the position of suits become mors 
and more obscure, until at length such an es> 
tanglement ia presented aa no one, in or oat of tits 
solicitor's offices, can unravel. There are, every 
practitioner in extensive business knows, a 
large nambcr of suits and proceedings in this 
position, the solicitor has perhaps expended 
many hundreds of pounds, by way of disbarte- 
menta in the matter, and after a lapse of nnm- 
bcrs of years he finds himself all bat helpless in 
his desire, in his client's and his own inUreats, to 
dispose of and complete such a matter. We qnite 
admit the desirability of providing a remedy for 
this unfortunate state of thinga ; bat in what 
direction to look for it, is difficult to say. To go to 
the root of some of these proceedings is the work 
almost of a lifetime, and the labour almost of Jk 
history. ______^ 

Some justices of the peace are very incompetent 
and nnfitted for the responsible petitions into 
which they are at times thrust from politioal 
motives, and some few magistrates' clerks are 
not as competent as they shoald be. The follow- 
ing, at all events, in part illustrates the oomet- 
noss of these assertions : Mr. Lawrence zeotatij 


Sigitized by 

Google ^^ 

Nov. 14, 1874. J 


applied to thu Court of Queen'a Benoli on behalf 
of one Eobin.x, a grocer, for a rule for a 
mandamus (iM'mg upon two of tho jastices of 
Monmonthshire to hear and determine his appli- 
cation for a certificate to sell wine, spirits, and 
sweets not to be consumed on tho premises. He 
had giren the necessary notices and went before 
the jastices sitting as the licensing committee. 
They called upon him to give evidence of oha- 
imoter, wherenpon he was abont to call the snper- 
intendent of police and others, bnt he was told 
the magistrates required icritten testimony, and 
not oral evidence. One of the justices said the 
applicant was a respectable man and ought to 
have his licence. Tho chairman replied, " That 
it might be so, but he mast produce a written 
character." A report in a local newspaper attri- 
bates to counsel applying for the writ the state- 
ment that the solution of the coarse adopted, 
perhaps, was the fact that there was " only 
the magistrates' clerk to advise them." It is 
hardly needful to say that this is a very un- 
called for reflection on a most competent bod^ 
of men, and from the report before us it 
does not even appear that the magistrates' clerk 
was present on the occasion . In a case of James 
Ballard, Mr. Lawrence said this was a similar 
application. When Ballard appeared before the 
justices, the chairman said to him, " Have you a 
written character ?" He replied, " No," upon 
which the chairman rejoined, " Then you follow 
Thomas Bobins." Bules were of course granted. 

A siNTlKENTAii article on imprisonment for debt 
lua appeared during the week in tho columns of the 
Daily Telegraph. The opinion of our contem- 
porary is founded on a return recently issued, 
■howing tho number of County Court commit- 
ments for the year 1873 to have been 5279. Of 
these 2492 were imprisoned for default in payment 
of debts over 40b. ; 2750 were looked up on judg- 
ments for sums above 5s., but not exceeding 408. ; 
30 for indebtedness between the sums of Is. and 
5s. ; and, says tho Daily Telegraph, " one luckless 
wretch was put in prison for a debt of one shilling ! 
He must have been a most hardened and contume- 
lious offender, and it is to be hoped that he became 
»ii the better for the chastening which tho County 
Court judge felt bound to administer to him ; for, 
jadgment summonises are not to be disobeyed with 
Impunity." Our contemporary adds: "Itappearsto 
us expedient before a man's body is taken inoxeou- 
tion, to distrain npon wVat goods ho has." Wo can 
hardly suppose the views indicated by the article 
in question to be genuine, but rather designed to 
meet the approval of a certain large section of the 
public. Oar readers will agree with us that a 
luge proportion of tho commitments are rendered 
absolutely ncnossary by tho contumacious conduct 
,flf jildgment debtors. Tho abolition of imprison- 
Ueat for debt has fostered in tho minds of certain 
«lm«i the idea that they may pay wh«n tf 
•Httt them, and with these the simple order to pay 
m a fixed time or by in.stalmcnts at stated periods 
is deliberately diToffarded. It would bo most un- 
fortunate it tho power at present vested in County 
Court judges to commit for contempt was taken 
away or even curtailed. Solicitors know well 
enough that the abolition of imprisonment for 
debt has left thorn in a great measure powerless 
to recover their client's debts under .£50, and in 
the case of larger amounts recourse is had to the 
Bukruptcy Act in a manner never contemplated. 
Sentiment is out of the question. People have to 
live, and by honeot means ; and unless the law 
gives to a creditor ample means of enforcing 
prompt payment of just debts, sorions conse- 
quences must inevitably follow. 

Wz publish in these columns a report of a case 
of considerable importance to articled clerks. 
It ii certainly astonishing that mistakes are so 
fre<^ncntly made in regard to the stamping, en- 
ToUmg, registering, and filing of articles of clerk- 
ship, and tho circumstances of the ease before us, 
as also the serious consequences entailed upon 
the articled olork by his neffligonce (for we can 
call it by no other name) should prove a warning 
to the many who are too apt to trust to unreliable 
information obtained in casual conversation as 
to tho modus operandi in such matters. It 
could not bo expedited that the court would make 
Inch an order as that a^ked for, though it is hard 
for the clerk to have to serve another two years in 
^onteqaesoe of the error committed. 

So far as we have been able at present to ascer- 
tain, the number of solictors who were on the 9th 
isst. elected to the office of mayor is less than it 
has been in former years. Among those elected are 
the following : -The Eight Hon. D. H Stone, for 
London, a<<mitted in Michaelmas Term, 1839 ; 
Edwin Hnmnft, Dorchester, Michaelmas Term, 
1861 - kes, Dudley, Easter Term, 1860 ; 

Wil: viok, Folkestone, Easter Term, 

184o. : rjrer, Preston, Hilary Term, 18.'J7; 

George Metcalfe Watson, Stockton-on-Tees, 
MinhMlmM Term, 1856 ; George Woodbury 

Cookram, Tiverton, Hilary Term, 1817 ; P. 
Prothero Smith, Truro. Trinity Term, 1832; 
W. H. Stawart, sen., Wakefield, Hilary Term, 
1830; George Boulter Welsford, Weymouth, 
Michaelmas Term, 1856 ; Henry Field Wilkins 
(County Court Registrar), Chipping Norton, 
Hilary Term, 1829; William Nioholls Marcy 
(Clerk, to Magistrates, &o.), Bewdlcy (re-elected), 
Hilary Term, 183i; G.T. Canning, Esq., Chard; 
Frederick Vivian Hill, Esq., Helston ; Alderman 
J. Parry Jones, Denbigh (re-elected, fourth time) j 
Mr. WUliam Watson, Headon, Yorkshire. We 
hope to be able to publish further names in our 
next issue. 

We have received from a subscriber a very in- 
teresting document which want of spawje prevents 
our publishing in our present issue. In forward- 
ing it our corroapondeut .says it was sent from the 
oflice of the Controller of the Post-office Savings 
Banks to the representative of a deceased de- 
positor, who applied for information as to what 
would be necessary to enable him to withdraw the 
amount deposited by the deceased. This precious 
document speaks for itself, and is a Government 
lesson to the people how to do without solicitors. 
The affidavits to lead to probate and administra- 
tion must be sworn "in the oflice," and in this 
instance " the department repudiates agents." 
We have no wish, nor have solicitors, that the ser- 
vice of professional men should be resorted to 
without occasion, but on the other hand Govern- 
ment officials must not be permitted to issue 
printed statements which point out to the public 
a course which, if adopted, will not benefit those 
pursuing it, and is yet injurious to the Profes- 
sion. We shall again refer to this practice 
when printing the notice in question. 

We regret to have to announce that Mr. Daniel 
Purges, who has been for twenty-five years Town 
Clerk of Bristol, has died suddenly, at his res- 
dence at Clifton. Mr. Burges had attended his 
official duties daring the day, and was present in 
the Police-court to welcome the new mayor, Mr. 
Christopher Thomas. He expired in his chair 
while he was reading a newspaper. He was ad- 
mitted on the roll of attorneys in Trinity Term, 
1832, and was held in high esteem by his 
professional brethren. His decease will be duly 
noticed in our obituary columns. 

ToADE Mask — Lapse op Time — Frwvv. 


Injunction. — The court will not refuse to 
grant an injunction to restrain the infringe- 
ment of a trade mark, on the mere ground that 
a great number of years have elapsed since it 
was first infringed by the defendant. But 
when many years have elapsed before the 
plaintiff takes steps to restrain the infringe- 
ment, the court will require clearer proof than it 
would otherwise have done that tho trade mark 
was adopted by the defendant originally with a 
fraudulent intent, and will require the plaintiff 
to prove that he had been actually injured by tho 
infringement. Decision of Maline, V.C. affirmed : 
(IJodjersv. Rodgers, 31 L. T. Rep. N. S. 285. Ch.) 

Solicitok'b Lien—" Property Recovered 
or Preserved "—23 & 2-4 Vict. c. 1'27, s. 28— 
Ancient Lights — Costs. — A solicitor was en- 
gaged to defend a suit instituted to restrain the 
defendant from rebuilding his house so as to 
interfere with the plaintiff's ancient lights, and to 
obtain a mandatory injunction in respect of tho 
portion of the house already built. The defen- 
dant became bankrupt before the hearing, and his 
trustee compromised the suit on the terms that 
tho building should neither be taken down nor 
raised hinher, and then sold the house to a person 
who afterwards mortgaged it. On a petition by 
tho solicitor praying for a declarttion that he 
was entitled to a charge for his costs upon the 
house under the 28th section of the 23 & 21 Vict, 
c. 127 : Held (affirming the decision of the Master 
of the Rolls) that no " property " had been 
" recovered or preserved " within the meaning of 
the Act, and that the petition must be dismissed 
with costs : (Foxon v. Gascoiyne, 31 L. T. Eep. 
N. S. 289. Ch.). 

Lessor and Lessee — Underleasb — Cove- 
Lessor's consent. — In an agreement for an 
underlease of coal mines, it was provided that the 
underlease should contain "the like provisions, 
conditions, and stipuUtions in all respects " as 
were contained in the original lease. The original 
lease contained a covenant on the part of the 
lessee not to assign or underlet without the lessor's 
consent. Held (reversing the decision of Bacon, 
V.C.) that in the covenant against assignment in 
the underlease, it was not the name of the original 
lessor which was to bo inserted as the person 
whose consent was to be required, but that of the 
under-lesBor : (Williamson y. Williamion, 31 L. T. 
Eep. N. S.291. Chan.) 

stakenoldeb — interpleader — parties — 
Costs— Undertaking as to Damages- In- 
QUIRT.— Where there are two or more claimants 
of goods in tho hands of a stakeholder, the only 
way in which he can protect himself is by filing a 
bill of interpleader. It, instetid of doing so, he 
litigates with the claimants separately, he must 
pay the costs of the successful claimant. Goods 
in the hands of a shipowner were claimed by tho 
shipper under an alleged lien, and also by the 
holder of the bills of lading. "The shipper filed a 
bill to restrain the shipowner from parting with 
the goods, and the other claimant brought an 
action on his bills of lading against the shipowner. 
To restrain this action the shipowner filed a bill, 
to which he did not make the shipper a party, and 
an injunction was granted on the usual under- 
taking as to damages. The shipper's bill was dis- 
missed with costs. Held (reversing the decision 
of Bacon, V.C.) that the bill of the stakeholder to 
restrain the action brought by the holder of the 
bills of lading must bo dismissed with costs, and 
that the defendant to that bill was entitled to an 
inquiry as to damages under the undertaking : 
(Laing v. Zeden, 31 L. T. Eep. N. S. 281. Chan.) 

Will — Construction — Pakticulab oe 
General Eesidue-Ademption— Misdescrip- 
tion — Gift cum onebe. — Testator gave a sum 
of XIO.OOO and all the money he had invested in 
the fands, to trustees upon trust to invest such 
portion thereof upon mortgage of freehold secu- 
rity as would be sufficient to produce certain 
annuities ; and gave the residue of the said sum 
of XIO.OOO, and money in the funds, to I. W. A. 
The will contained a general residuary clause. 
Some of the annuities, being for charitable pur- 
poses, were void. Hold, that the void bequests 
fell into the particular and not the general 
residue. Testator gave to L. A. all balances of 
profits due to him from the firm in which he was a 
partner, up to the month of June 1869, and gave 
all his share and interest in the firm and profits 
from June 18G9 to other persons. Between that 
date and the time of his death testator drew from 
tho partnership, on account of profits, nearly the 
whole amount due to him in Juno l8tJ9. Held, 
that the legacy to L. A. was adeemed pro ianto 
by the drawings. Where a testator in the same 
gift bequeathed shares in a company, which were 
onerous, together with other property: Held, 
that the legatees might disclaim the onerous 
shares : (Aston t. Wood, 31 L. T. Eep. N. S. 293. 
V.C. B.) 


Monday, Nov. 9. 

(Before Blackburn, Lush, Quain, and Abchi. 


Ex parte Bedford. 

Articled cleric— Non-regiitralion of articles within 

six monthjs of execution. 
F. Octavius Crump moved on affidavitB for an 
order that service under articles mighi; be 
reckoned from the date of their elocution, not- 
withstanding more than six months had elapsed. 
Tho affidavits stated that the articles were 
executed in Juno 1872, that they were registered 
and the stamp duty and penalty paid last month, 
that the articled clerk had been informed at the 
time of entering into the articles that he could 
stamp and register them at any time on payment 
of the penalty, and that he had no intention of 
defrauding the revenue. Counsel referred to 
Ex parte Norton (26 L. J. 21, Q. B.) ; to Ex parU 
Herbert (31 L. J. 33, Q. B.) ; and to Ex parte Belt 
i9 L. T. Eep. N. S. 516.) In the latter case Pol- 
look, C. B. said, " Our opinion is that the provi- 
sions for the filing of the affidavit, and the en- 
rolment of the registration of the contract in 
the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 73, s. 8, are not merely for the 
purposes of the revenue, but also for assisting in 
securing the due fitness of persons who are to 
be admitted as attorneys in the courts of West- 
minster Hall. It seems to us, therefore, that it 
is not enough that the Treasury is satisfied, but 
that we ought to take care also, that the other 
objects of the statute are not frustrated, and 
consequently, if it appeared that the omission to 
stamp the articles and so to enrol them and the 
affidavit, wore wilful , on the part of the clerk, 
whether because not stamped or for any other 
reason, we should not interfere to assist him." 
There had here been a mistake only and no wilful 
evasion of the Act of Parliament, and it was not a 
case in which ignorance should affect tho bond fids 
service of the clerk. 

Lush, J., referred to Ex parte Bis1u>p (30 L. J. 
48, C. P.), and a master handed to the court a 
recent case in 22 W. Eep., in opposition to the 
application, which 

The Court finally declined to ^p^ant, saying 
that the fact of the olerk serving with knowledge 
that the articles were not stamped or enrolled 
was fatal. It would open a door to fraud upon 
the revenue if clerks were allowed thus to evade 
the provisions of the Act of Parliament. 

Attorney for applicant, Bourdillion. 

digitized by 




[Nov. 14, 1874. 


LTransferred to the Comniiasionerii tor the Reduction of the 
National Oebt, auU wbicu will be p.iid lo the persous 
respectively whoBO names are pretixed to each in three 
months, uulefts other claimants Koonor appear. J 

Dii,ksos tThos. Goluit), Kdmburgh, accountant, one divi. 
dead on the Finn ol £27.'»? I2». Cd Tureo per Cent, 
Annui'ie?'. Claima-nt, said Thoa. Goldie DickKun. 

Hktley (Wm.), Lonif Orton, Hantp. farm'T; and Wrijfht 
(Tho8. Pariah;, Helpi-tono, Nortbainptonshire, farmer, 
£3W 13». 9d. Reduced Three per Cent. Annuities, 
Claimants, wiid Wm. Hetley ana Thos. Pariah Wright, 



Battersex Foundry and Hob-se^uoe Works (Limitbd).— 

Potitioa for winding-up, to be heard Nov. 20, before 
V.C. H. 

Beskesir Stkbl akd Obdnancf Company.— Creditora to 
send in by Dec. Hi, their naaies and addre8>0^, and the par- 
ticnUrsof their elttims, and tbo uamea and aadrcf^.ses of 
their Bolicitora, if anv. to C. F. Kemp, l**, Walbrook, 
liCndon, the official Uctuidator of tho Raid company. 
Jan. 15, at the ciiamberii of V.O. M.. at twelve o'clock, ia 
the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon 
Buch claims. 

Holywell Level Silver Lkad Minin'o Comi'AUy.— Credi- 
tora to «end in by Dec. -t* tneir nauieti and addresses, and 
the particolarB of their claims, and the names and ad- 
vlreaaea of their solicitors, if any, to J S, Bleaae, Liver- 
pool, the official liqoidaior of tiie said company. Dec. 11, 
at the chambers of V.C. M., at twelve o'clock, is the time 
appointed for hearing andaOjiidicating upon such claims. 


BiMEFiT BuiLDisa SociETV.— Creditors to send in by 
Nov. S(J, their names and addrcssos, and tnc particalars 
of their claimi^, and the namea and addresses of their 
Bolicitors. if any, to Jos. Head, MildenhalU Suffolk, the 
oilicial huuidatov of the aaid sutioty. Dec- y, at the 
chambers of V.C. M., as twelve o'clock, is the time ap- 
pointed for hearing and adjudicating upon auch claims. 

BoNORA CoMi'ASi" iLiMiTEDi.— Petition for winding-up to 
by heard, Nov. -H), before V.C. M. 

Town and Country Company.— Creditors to 
Bend in by Nov. Si) their uume^ and addresses, and the 
particulars of their cluims, and the names and addresses 
of their solicitors, if any, to Win. H, McCreight, 6. Bay- 
mond- buildings, Grny's-mn, Middlese.x, the oificial li(iui- 
dator of the t^aid cumpany. Dec. 7, at tte chambers of 
V.C. B., at twelve o'clock, is the time appointed for 
hearing and adjudicating upon &ncU claims. 

Last Day of PnoOF. 

Albert (Hugh), Southall-park, Middlesex, gentleman. 
Dec. 10 ; Wm. Uribble, solicitor, 1^ Abchoich lone. Lon- 
don. Dec. 17 ; V. C. U., at 12 o'clock. 

Chadwick (Thos.), Bury, contractor. Feb. 1; P. and J. 
Watson, solicitors, 'J, Broad-street, Bury. 

CoLYEB (Thos.). Wombell Ball, Northtleet, Kent, Esq. 
Dec. 1(1; J. C. Hayward, eolicitor, 5, Frederick's- place. 
Old Jewry, London. Dec. tii; M. U . at U o'clock. 

Dc CuADBA (Buenaventura), Lansdown-stiuare, Bosher- 
ville, Kent, and iSt Lime-street, London, cooimission 
merchant. Dec. lU ; Cha«. Kobbius, solicitor, New- 
square, Lincoln's- inn, London. Dec. 2^, M. B.,iat eleven 

Hawbiog (Jane), Horse Head inn, Wythbum, Cros- 
thwaite, Cumberland, widow. Dej. al ; Koberi Broatch. 
BOlicitorLKeBWii;k. Jan. I* ; v.c W-, at twelve o'clock. 

HowBLL (Wm.), Swansea, grocer. Dec. 7 ; Strick and 
Belllngham, solicitors, Swansea. Deo. 1^^ ; V.C. H., at 
twelve o'clock. 

IvEY (John), 14, Buckin^ham-atrfet. Fitiroy-square, Mid- 
dlesex, plasterer, ecaghola manufacturer, and plaster of 
paris maker. Dec. 21 ; Taylor and Co., solicitors, 2t<, 
Great James-street, Bedford-row, London. 

Jokes (Ishmaol). Treforest, Llantwit, Vardre. Glamorgan, 
licensed victualler. Dec. 1 ; David W. Davis, solicitor, 
Cardiff. Dec. 8 ; V.C. B.. at twelre o'clock. 

Martina (Sir Wm.'j, Hyde Park-gardem;, Middlesex, and 
Westmont. Kyde, Isle of Wight. Dec. 5j Charles W. 
Young, solicitur, 12, Kssex-stroct, Strand, London. 
Dec. ly ; M. B., at eleven o'clock. 

ScHWERSEKSKY (Isaac), Cross-Street, Birkenhead, outfitter. 
Nov. no I C. B. Copeman, solicitor, Liverpool. Dec. 10 ; 
V.C. M., at twelve o'clock. 

BEWtLL, otherwise Bollons (Jas. Bollons), Bedford, book- 
seller and printer. Dec. 9; H. Tebbs, Bolicitor. Bedford. 
Dec. I'J: V.C. U., at twelve o'cluck, 

ViALL (King), Baythom-park, Bbscx, Esq. Dec. If); 
Purkisa and Perry, Rohcttors. l, Lincoln 'a-inn-fields, 
LonUon. Dec. 23 ; V.C. H., at twelve o'clock. 

Walker ( Wm.), Nag's Heail Inn. Wythbum, Crosthwaite, 
Cumberland, inn keei>cr. Dec. 31 ; Kobert Broatch, soli- 
citor, Keswick, Camuerland. Jan. 11; V.C. H., at twelve 

Wells (Henry Jas.), 3, L ttle MilchcU-street, St. Lukea, 
Middlesex, licensed victualler. l*iov. 21; A. Crossman, 
solicitor, a. King's-road, Bedford-row, Middlesex. Dec. 
1 ; V.C. B., at twelve o'clock. 

WiLLiAM^s (tUzabetii A.), Uiiislas, Glamorgan, spinster. 
Dec. 1 ; R. Pennington, solicitor, 6, New-fiquare, Lincoln's- 
mn, Loudon. Dec. 12 ; V.C.M. at Twelve o'clock, 

CEEDITOBS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35. 

Last Day of Cl*iu)v, and to ic?ioni Particulars to he sent. 
Akvasdale (Wm.). Bingtield, and of Morpeth, and 7, 

Etdon-plaoe, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, civil engineer. Dec. 

25; AUan and Daviea, fcoLciturs. £i, Grainger-street, 

Battock (Geo.), Storrington, Sussex, farmer, maltstsr, 

and seed merchant. Dec. i ; Goo. F. Mant, solicitor, 

Bayliffk (Joshua J.l, Portnnhon, Sheffield, grocer. Nov, 

SO; Kodgers, Thomas, anu Snut, solicitors, Bauk*8treet. 

Belcher (HeDryl, 84, Copenhagen -street, Islington, Mid- 
dlesex, builder's foreman. Nov. 'Jo , Stoneham and 

Legge, solicitors, 5. Phil pot -1 an t^. London. 
BiDDiiR (Geo), 81, Blackman-sLreet, Borough, Surrey, 

engineer. Dec. 31 ; Wm. Foster, solicitor, 7, Queen-street 

Place, London. 
Bloufield i,S«muel G.), late of 2, Arnold-road, Tooting, 

tiurrey, formerly of 60, Wiuci>e ter-street, PimUco, 

Miadlei^ex, »ientltiman. Dec. 31 ; J. Edwin Carter, solicitor, 

64, Austin Friars, London. 
BcLMER (John), Dakfleld. Clapham-park, Surrey, and of 

tit, Clement's House, Clfmont a lane. Loudon, tud of 

Acorn Wharf, Surrey, timbtr uiercnant, and late a 

partner In iho firm oi Peter RoK and Co. Nov. 30* 

New)>on and Co.. solicitors, 1, Wardrobe- place, Doctor's- 

commons, Loudon. 
Carey (Wm. J.j. Lauriston House, Bedford-park, Croydon, 

Surrey, and;U, Mark-htne. London, nhipowner. Dec, lu ; 

Wm. A. Crump, solicitor, lu. PhilpoHano, London. 
Child (Chaa. J, Box Farm, VernhriiJi Dean, Southampton, 

farmer. Jan. 1 ; J. Smith, sol.citor. High-street, An- 

dover. Hant)). 
Cole uIos.?, Dudley, victualler. Nov. 11; Coldicott and 

Onuumg, solicitors, 2jy, Cofctle-strttt, Dudley. 
CoLKY {.Mary , Chelteniiam, spinster. Jcnes and Boll, 21 

Cambiaj'-place, Clieltcnbaui. 

CowpER (Geo.), Eihall, Warwick, beerhousekoeper. Dec, 

fi; J. Langston Jones, solicitur, Alceatctu. 
Cdlvcrwell (Samuol H.}, 21, Norfolk-street, Strand, Lon- 
don, E-q. Jan. 1 ; Waiters and Gush, solicitors, 3, Fm,s- 
bory-circus, London. 

Daldy 1 Wm.), Stonal. Kempsey, Worcester, farmer, Jan, 
li; Bate Palmer, Wooahall, Kempsey. 

Daw tOeo. T.), Colston Ba^sett, Notts, Esq. Feb. 12; 
Upton and Co., solicitors, 20, Austin Friars, London. 

Debney (Emma), 2."), Bolfover-street, Marylebone, Middle- 
sex. Dec. 20; Jos. Wm, Froud, 4U, Chaudos-atreet, 

Fairdairn (Sir Wm.), Bart., Manchester. Nov. SO; Cnn- 
liffe and Beaumont, solicitora, 4'*, Chan eery- lane, London. 

Garnick (Uabelia), formerly of 102, Bisnopgate-street 
Witbm, London, afterwards of 11, Thomas terrace. Blue 
Anchor-road, B^rmond?ey, Surrey, and at tbo time of 
her decease residing at 2. Christchurch-terrace, Camber- 
well. Surrey. Spinster. Jan. 4j James Gjren, soiicltor, 
27, South lioulton-street, Oxford-street, Loudon. 

GiiksoN (Alexander C), Bebington, Cheater, surgeon. Dec. 
24; J. Webster, solicitor, 32, Queen-street, Whitehaven. 

Gilbertson (Geo.). 74, Charlwcwd-street, Pimiico, Middle- 
sex, Esq. Rov. SO; Jonts and Starling, solicitors,!), 
Gray's-inn-sqaaro, London. 

Good (Henryj, 60. Moorgate-street, London, stationer. 
Dec. 24; Carr and Co., solicitors, 70, Basinghall-strtet, 

Harrl>^n (Wm.'), Bidford, Nott^ miller. Feb. 1; Percy 
and Co., solicitors, W'heoler Gate, Nottingham. 

Henshaw (Wm.), 13 and 15, Wharves, City-rond Basin, and 
of Tottenham-lane. Horusey. London, builder and con- 
tractor. Dec. 1 ; East and Funston, solicitors, 3. Bion 
Golli?ge, London-wall, London. 

HonsoN {Francis). Burnt Stones, Sheffield, merchant. Nov. 
24, H, Walter Ibbotsoa, solicitor, 23, Change-alley, Shef- 
field. • 

Holmes (Samuel), Lower-ro^ Deptford, Kent, (p-ocer and 
cheesemonger. Jan. 7 ; W. B. Kersey, soScitor, 5)f, 
Gracechurch-street, London. 

Elaftf.nbgrgeh (Chas. J.), 157 and 159, Begent-street, 
Middle^ex. Dae. SL ; Richardson and Sadler, solicitcrs, 
2*i, &*lden- square, London. 

Knight i Very Kev. WmJ, Hartlepool, canon of the Roman 
Catholic Church. Jan. 1 ; Leadbltter and Harvey, soli- 
citors, ri rain ger- street. West, Newca^tle-upou-'l'yue. 

Ll'I-ton (Thos.), 21, Fash ion -street, Dockhead. Southwark, 
Surrey, fishmonger. Jan, 12; J, Mote, solicitor, L Wal- 
brook, London. 

M'Keiuhar, cthens'ise Cameron (John), Westminster- 
road, Liverpool, plumber, Dec. SI, Whitley and Mad- 
dock, solicitors, 6, Water-t-treot, Liveriwol. 

Miles (JohnJ, S, Carhale Villas, Eaatboumo, Esq. Dec. 1 ; 
Upton and Co., solicitorF, 20, Austinfriar?, London. 

MiLWARD {Isabella), Richmond-hill, near Whitehaven, 
widow. Dec. 7 ; Pitman and Lane, solicitors, 27, Nicholas- 
lane, Lombard-street, Loudon. 

Reed (Wm.), Jun., Doncaster, coach builder, Deo. 11; 
F. A. Fisher, solicitor, Doncastftr. 

Rose (Hon. Sir Geo.), 4, Hyde Park-gardens, Middlesex. 
Jan, I i Cunlifife and Co.. solicitors, 5(}, Browu-streot, 

Shaw (Klv W.), Holywell House, Stainlsnd. Halifax and 
Holywell Mills. yt*jnUnd, woollen manufacturer. Jan. 
£0 ; North and Sons, solicitors, I, East- parade, Leeds. 

Sk 1 LL ( Jas. ), Felstead Bury. Essex, farmer. Jan. 1 ; 
Hollyer-Bristow and Co., solicitors, 4, Bedford-row, Mid- 

Solomon (Nathaniel L.), 23, Westboume-square, Middle- 
se.x, and of the Island of St. Helena, merchant. Dec. 22 ; 
S. Solomon, sobcitor, 22, Fin.«bary-place, London. 

Smart :Thu8.], Mare-street, H&ckney, Middlesex, and of 
the Bank of England, Esq. Nov. 3u ; Sheffield and Sons, 

bullullorH, ot, tiline-sbrtrvL, Liuuduu. 

Storkv (Thos. B.), Ulatton, Hunts., fanner. Deo. 15 j 

Greene and Mellor. solicitors, Huntintjdon. 
SvKEs (Sarah), 10, St, George's- terrace, Leeds, widow, 

Dec. 7; Hick and Jones, solicitors, 7, Cookridge-street, 

Taylor (Hannah), 26, Mid dleton- road, Dalston, Middlesex, 

spin«.ter. Dec. 14 ; W. Carpenter and Sons, solicitors. 4, 

Bral>ant- court. Pbilpot-lane, London. 
Thexton (Edward G.), Ashton House, Beethara, West- 
morland, esq. Dec. 21; Thomely and Dismore, uolicitors. 

14, Water-street, Liverpool. 
Walker ( Henry S.), Whitby, gentleman. Dec, 21 ; Gray 

and Pannett, Bolicitors, W^hitby. 
Walkhb (Margaret), Dunsley, Newholm-cnm-Drmsley, 

Whitby, widow. Dec. 1 ; Gray and Paanett, solicitors, 

Flowergate, Whitby. 
Weall i,Wm.), 5, Bell-yard, Doctor 's-commone, London, 

and of Pinner, Middlesex, solicitor. Dec. 31; J. D. 

Blake, solicitor, fi. Bell-yard, Dottor'a-commons. London. 
W^RiTE (Mary Lydia). formerly of GI. Sloane-etreet, Chelsea, 

Middlesex, late of 23. Rue Montoyer Qnartier Leopold, 

Brusj^els, spinster. Dec. 10 ; Walters and Co., soUcitors, 

It, New-square, Lincoln'a-inn, London. 
Winning (Jos. Wm.), Heath Cottage, Sydenham -road, 

Croydon, Surrey, Esq. Dec. 81 ; J. and F. Keedham, 

Bolicitors, 1. New-inn, Strand, London. 
Wurtlet (Susannah), 2, Portland-place. Portland- road, 

road, Norwood, Surrey, widow. Jan. 3; Wm. Jaquet, 

fcolicitor, 4, Serjeant's- inn, Templo, London. 
Yaldes (Rev. G.), Alphington, Devon, rector of Twywell, 

N'ort Hampton. Dec. 2'j: Geo. F. Truscott, solicitor, S, 

Maddock's-row. Exeter, 


Tufsdat/t .iVotJ. 3, 
By MesBTB. Nswbon and Habdino, at the Mart, 

Dalston.— Nos. 25 and 27, Shmblaad-grove, term 6S years- 
sold for £125. 

Lower Clapton.— Nos. 3 and 4, Latira-place, freeliold— sold 
for £1000. 

WeiInffihiif,Xor. 11. 

By Messrs. Rushwortb, Abbott, and Busuworth at tho 

Piccadilly.— No. 27, Albemarle- street— sold for £11,400. 

Bexley-heath.— Mera Lodge, with stabling, &c.,— Bold for 

Enclosures of land, containing 7a. 3r. 25p.— sold for £2490. 

Tintern Lodge. Llangiboy Lodge- and Mordar Lodge, free- 
hold— M)ld for £1010. 

Abbey Wood.— Nos. 2 to 10, Harrow-cottages, freehold— gold 
for £:-G0. 

Godstone, High-street.- Two bouses with shops, freehold- 
sold for £620. 

Sonthwark.-Nos. 191, 103, 195, 107, 199, 201, 207 and 209, 
Union- street— sold for £210. 

Whetstone.— Freehold cottage, with plot of land and three 
copyhold cottages— sold for £5U5. 


Eating of Tramways. — In aasessing the rats- 
able Tolue of tramways, the anuaal grosa traffic 
receipts earned over the entire system must be 
taken as the basia of the estimate of the rent, and 
the net receipts in each parish as tho criterion of 
the rateable \alae in each parish. Where a tram- 
way ronte begins and ends in the same parish, the 
not receipts of that route is the value upon which 
the tramway owners must be rated. Where a 
tramway route extends through two or more 
parishes, the fairest practicable mode of appor- 
tioning held to be by dividing the receipts from 
each distinct service route iu proportion to the 
lineal mileage of auch route in each parish respec- 
tively. The general expenses, except horse expes- 
ees, allowed proportionately to tho number o! oar 
miles run over in each parish upon each of the 
several distinct service routes therein : (London 
Tramways Company v. The Asscsment Covimittei 
ofLambtth, 31 L. T. Hop. N. S. 319.) 

The throat and windpipe are especially liable to 
inflammation, causing soreness and dryueiis, tickling 
and irritation, inducing cough and aiTecting the voice. 
For these symptoms use glycerine in the form of 
iujubes, Gl;^ceriae iu these agreeable confections, 
being in proximity to the glands at the moment they 
are excited by the act of sucking, becomes actively 
healing. 6d. and Is. packets (by post S or 15 stamps), 
labelled '* James lUppa and Co., Hom(eopathic Chemists, 
48, Threadneedle-stieet, and liU, Piccadilly.— [Advt.J 

A " Someraetahiro Magistrate " writes to tho 
Times : 

The time is fast approaching when, in pur- 
Euance of the Act of last session, the several 
Asaesament Committees throughout the country 
will have to take in hand the valuation of mines, 
woodlands, and sporting rights. The mode of 
assessing mines and wooulands is sufficiently indi- 
cated in the Act itself ; but with regard to the 
valuation of sporting rights everything ia vague 
and undefined, ana in this respect an almost 
impossible, and certainly a moat invidious, duty 
ia relegated to the judgment of the several com- 

it will, I imagine, be neoeaaary that, in every 
county, a preliminary meeting of delegatea from 
their reapeotive committees be convened in order 
to lay down the broad principles upon which to 
base a aatiefactory and uniform rating through- 
out each county of thoso "sporting rights." In 
this view, and in the hope of arriving at aome 
practical reault which may bo satisfactory, at any 
rate in my own county (which is not one of the 
great game preserving counties) , I have ventured 
to suggest to the Assessment Committee of which 
I am chairman the adoption of the five following 
propositions, and I shall deem the ineortion of 
them In your columns as tho very best means of 
testing their practical value : 

"1. That where the right of sporting ia let apart 
from the occupation of the aoil, such right shall 
be assessed at an amount not less than the rent 
for which such right is let. 

" 2. That where by reason of tho preservation 
of game (including rabbits) the renting value foi 
agricultural purposes of the lands so preserved ia 
depreciated, the rate for sporting rights over such 
lands (whether suoh rights be let or not) be not 
leaa than the amount by which the routing agri- 
cultural value ia so depreciated. 

" 3. That in all woodlands in the occupation of 
the owner, and in which the right of shooting is 
in the owner's bands, an assessment of Is. M. 
per acre be charged in respect of the sporting 

■' i. That where the right of sporting in the 
handa of the owner extends over a considerable 
area, and is exercised under favourable oironm- 
stances as to locality and convenience for game, 
but without either pecuniary profit to the owner 
of the right, or detriment to the renting value 01 
the land for agriotUtural purposes, an assessmont 
of (id. per acre on open lands and Is. 6d. per acre 
on woodlands, shall be taken as a fair average 
rating value of auch right. 

"5. That where the right of sporting iaexer- 
cised by the owner over an area so limited or so 
inconvenient as to afford no reasonable proba- 
bility of pecuniary or other advantage accruing 
from the exercise of suoh right beyond an occa- 
sional amusement, and where such right is exer- 
ciaed without any forced preservation of game and 
without any appreciable injury to the agrioultiu*! 
value of the laud, such right shall bo deemed » 
' bare right,' incapable of forming the subject oi 
any appreciable rate, any more than the right of 
walking over such laud would be capable of oaae*- 

Cantwkll (app.) V. Dowlino (reap.)- 
Tlie Bona Fide Traveller. 
In this matter a aummona has been issued at th» 
auit of Joseph Dowling, a constable of the B 
division of Metropolitan police, against Mr. Jamel 
Cantwell, proprietor of the Star and Garter Hotel, 
D'OHer-stroot, for having, on tho 24th Fob. 1S74, 
kept his bouse open for tbo sale of intoxioating 
liquors between tho hours of eleven and twelve 
o'clock at night. The information of tho constable 
was that on the occasion in question ho found 
twenty-six persona sitting at different tableii 


digitized by 


Nov. U, 1874..] 



most of them having dtiok before thorn. Mr. 
OuitWfll that thoao peraons woio either 
lodgers in th« houso or were tomi fiih travellers. 
On the hcariug of the summons it was found that 
cleTcn of the parties were actually lodgers, that 
fire or six others wore b&nn fida tr.ivellers, and no 
evidence wia given rospcctin? the remainder. 
^ JJr. Woodlook, under the oircumatanoea, convicted 
ir. Cantwell, and imposed a penalty of i 1 , but 
onsented to state a case for the opinion of the 
foonrt. In this case Mr. Woodlook said ho found 
[that every reasonable precaution was taken by 
~Ir. Cantwell to eioiade all persons who wore not 
Bther lodgers or hty)\a fide travellers, and that 
oth he and his employes believed that those in 
■ the hoQso belongod to either category. The ques- 
tions enbmitted for the consideration of the court 
, were — Does the onus of proof lie on the hotel 
ep«r to prove that all persons found drinking 
iter closing hours are either lodrars or hona tide 
avellers ; and, secondly, is the ooiia fide belief 
['Biat all persona to whom intoxicating drink was 
mppUed after closing hour were either lodgers or 
hona fide travellers a 8a6Scient answer to the 
rammons ? 

Beron, Q.C. (inatrncted by Messrs. Eimis and 
Son), now appeared to move that tho conviction 
be quashed. 

The Solicitor-General (instructed by W. Lane 
Joynt, solicitor to tho Crown and Treasury), said 
he had considered tho matter, and was prepared 
to consent that tho conviction should be quashed, 
without costs. The offence could never arise 
under the new Licensing Act, inasmuch as the 
hotel keeper would be privileged if he gave drink 
to lodgers or bona fide travellers. 

FiTiGERALD, J. — After having made lotia fide 
inqnirieg ? 
oolicitor-Oeneral. — Tee. 

FlTZGEBALD, J. — And having aiono fide belief in 
the resalt of these inquiries ? 

Solicitor-General. — Yes ; and so Mr. Woodlook 
hat found in this matter. The present enactment, 
it strikes me, would not leave a man open to a 
prosecution under the ciroumstances disclosed 
hare. We, therefore, consent that the conviction 
■hall be quashed. 

Fitzgerald, J. — It must be the act of the 
Crown, and not that of the Court. I shall, oor- 
tajnly, never be a party to quashing a conviction 
which I believe to be right. 

Solicitor-General. — It is the act of the Crown 
caiabtlj. W» do not think the circumatances 
would oonstitute an offence under the new Aoh. 

O'Brien, J. — Perhaps the better course would 
be to allow the case to be struok out of the list. 

Lose (,'HiEF Justice. — But if it be atrnok out 
the oonviction will stand. 

Solicitor-General. — Well, if your Lordships 
please, I will open the circumstances of the case. 
FiTJGEUALD, J. — There is no necessity. If 
you, representing the Crown, state to the court 
that, having considered the matter, you have 
come to tho conclusion that the conviction may be 
quashed, the ollicer will record the consent, and 
the order will go. 

The oonviction was then, by consent, declared 
quashed, without costs. 

Walsall BoRotiuH Quarter Sessions. — 
Those Sessions will be held on Friday, Nov. 20, 
before W. J. N. Neale, Esq., Recorder. Ten 
days' notice of appeal must be given to Mr. S. 
fVilkiiiaon, Clerk of the Peace. 



Sale— Delivery by Instalments — Failure 
or BuTER to Pay for one Instalment— In- 
solvency OF Buyer — Repudiation by Seller 
—Action fob non-deliveby — Whether Re- 
pudiation Justifiable. — Where goods sold are 
delivered by instalments, if the buyer fail to pay 
for one instalment, and is believed by the seller to 
be insolvent, tho seller ij justified in repudiating 
the contract. Tho defendants contracted to sell 
old iron r.iils to tho plaintiff, " delivery to take 
place during 1872, payment net cash, against bill 
of lading." On the i7th Jan. the defendants sent 
the plaintiff an instalment of rails, and tho plain- 
tiff paid the amount and received the bill of lading. 
On the 3l3t Jan. an invoice in respect of a further 
instalment woe cent to the plaintiff, but the 
plaintiff did not take up tho bills of lading in 
respect of such further instalment, notwithstand- 
ing notice from tho defendants that if he did not 
the rails would be eold to other parties. The raila 
having been so sold accordingly, the defendants, on 
the Uth Feb., adviaod the plaintiff that they oon- 
aidcred the contract cancelled, tho plaintiff demur- 
ring to any such cancellation. On the 22nd Feb. 
the plaintiff filed a petition for liquidation under 
sect. 125 of tho Bankruptcy Act 1869, the result 
of which was that tho plaintiff agreeing to pay a 
compoution of 2s. 6d. in the pound, and the 
trastee in bankruptcy determining not to adopt 

outstanding contracts, tho estate of the plaintiff 
was reas8ij;nod to him on the 23th Juno. On tho 
2.Jrd July the plaintiff called upon the defendants 
to go on with the contract, and, upon retusil, 
sued them for non-delivery. The jury found that 
the plaintiff could not have paid for tho bill of 
lading a<:cording to contract ; that the defendants 
had ground for believir.g, and did believe, b»th on 
the 13th Feb. and on tho 2-lth July, that the plain- 
tiff would be unable to pay for the future bills of 
lading, and had in fact abandoned the contract : 
Held, that tho defendants were justiiiod in treat, 
ing tho contract as cancelled, and a rule to set 
aside a verdict entered for the defendants dis- 
charged. Ifif/iers V. Reynolds (2 B. & Ad. 8S2), 
followed : (Bloomer v. lierjidein and another (31 
L. T. Hop. N. S. ■SOS. C. P.) 



Friday, Oct. 30. 

(Before H. W. Cole, Esq., Q.C, Judge.) 

Ke Steeds. 

Equity suit — Restraiiiinrj — Ji. A. 1869, sect. 77 — 

Married woman next friend. 
Motleram (instructed by Jacob Rowlands) ap- 
peaved in support of a motion to restrain pro- 
ceedings in an equity suit, in which there was a 
settlement, until .after the hearing of a motion in 
bankruptcy for an order under the 77th section of 
the Act declaring the rights of the parties in the 
furniture at the bankrupt's house, valued at 
several hundreds of pounds : and also certain 
stock deposited with tho Worcester City and 
County Banking Company. 

Loxdale Warren (instructed by Crototfter Davies) 
appeared on the other side. 

Moileram said this matter stood in a somewhat 
peculiar position. There was a motion in bank- 
ruptcy, and ihen his friend stated that there was 
no person to protect an infant who had rights 
under tho settlement. When he was permitted to 
file a bill appointing a trustee for the child, Mr. 
Warren did it in the name of a married woman, 
seeking to make her the next friend, whiob was 
quite contrary to the rules of practice. No 
married woman could give the required security 
for costs. 

Loxdale Warren could not say ho had found any 
absolute authority to show that a married woman 
could not appear as tue next mend. 

His Honour had had thirty years' experience 
in tho Court of Chancery, and he never heard of 
such a practice. 

Warren pointed out that his main point was to 
get the matter suspended until it could be clearly 
decided to whom the estate really belongod. 

After some further legal argument His Honour 
made an order that Frederick Herbert Steeds be 
appointed to appear and take part in the proceed- 
ings in tho bankruptcy on behalf of himself and 
all other persons interested under the settlement 
made on the 25th February, 173-t, with reference 
to the household furniture and railway stock 
alleged to be subject to the trust of such settle- 
ment ; and that he be served with all applications 
that should be made in tho matter concerning thia 
property. The further hearing was adjourned to 
the 19th of November. 

He Solomon Woolf. 
Husband and wife— Separate property of wife used 

in bankrupt's Inisiness — Trust fund. 
This was a motion in which Loxdale Warren (in- 
Btructcd by Crovitlier Davies) appeared on behalf 
of Mr. Luke J. Sharp (the trustee in the bank- 
ruptcy), and applied for an order declaring who 
waa entitled to the stock-in-trade, book debts, and 
other outstanding assets ; whether it was Mr. 
Sharp or the trustee under a marriage settlement. 
In 1872, £-VM was settled upon the bankrupt's 
wife by Mr. William Woolf, sen., in accordance 
with a marriage settlement, which contained 
somewhat singular conditions. Part of the XU>0 
was laid out in furniture, and no claim what- 
ever was made in respect to that; and the re- 
mainder was used in the bnsiness of the bank- 
rupt, so that tho case came within the 15th 
section. Where a married woman had separate 
property of her own settled upon her, and it 
was afterwards employed in her husband's busi- 
ness, then she became liable for the debts 
of her husband under the marriage settlement. 
Jlr. Sharp was appointed rei-eivor of the 
bankrupt's estate in December lost, and he took 
whole of tho stock and effects. Tho whole of 
the business ho ( H'arren) believed to be worth 
possession; but the trustee under the marriage 
settlement also took possession, and claim 3d the 
.£250. It was not only againat the provisions, 
but against public policy, that such a course of 
proceedings should be allowed, because, if it were, 
any tradesman previous to his marriage might 
settle tho whole of the property to be invested in 
bis business and used for trading on false capital 

as it were on hia wife's money. When the 
creditors came down on him, and w.%ntod him to 
pay their debts, he could Bay, " That is my wife's. 
It belongs to tho settlement, and, although I am 
trading with it, it ia not mine." He ( IV'unxii) 
relied on tho case, Jarman v. H'oHoJun (3 Term 
Hep. p. 618), where it was held that a woman 
might before miriiago have tho business and fur- 
niture settled so as to enable her to carry on the 
trade separately. If the husband did not Inter- 
meddle with tham, and there was no fraud, such 
ettccts were not liable for tho husband's debts ; 
but whether the trade was carried on siriply by 
tho wife or with the husband was a question loft 
for the jury to decide. 

J/offti-am, in reply, said the motion was in fact, 
to ask tho court to declare that certain goods 
should bo the goods of tho trustee in bankruptcy. 
They were of tho value of from iii'^O to .£290. 
Ho contended that the case cited did not att'eot 
the present one, where the creditors of a man 
were seeking to follow a trust fund simply be- 
cause it was a trust fund, and to take it to pay 
their own debts, which was certainly rather novel. 
He lilotleram) was contending against the appli- 
cation, when 

His Honour said, the question to be decided 
was, who was entitled to tho money lent on the 

It was stated that the goods were being re- 
deemed daily, and it was hoped that the court 
would settle who wa.s to receive tho money paid in 
connection with the pawnbroking business. 

His Honour declared that the money which at 
tho time of the bankruptcy had been lent, and 
was owing to tho bankrupt on pledge of goods in 
the bankrupt's trade aa'a pawnbroker, aid form 
part of hia property divisible amongst his credi- 
tors ; that the pawned goods, on security of which 
such money was lent, should be held by tho trustee 
of his estate, subject to any rights affecting the 
same on the part of persons who pledged such 
goods ; and that the trustee in bankruptcy should 
take such steps as should from time to time be 
jjroper for realising or receiving the payment of 
the moneys on the security of such pawned goods. 


Monday, Nov. 9. 
(Before M. Bebe, Esq., Judge.) 
Alleged assault on a County Court hnihff— Proce- 
dure— Appointment of sub-bailiff— Seizure under 

an unreijistercd bill of »ale viiihin iioenty-on* 

Messrs. Edward Spry, auctioneer ; John Pooley, 
bailiff ; and James Pooley, shopkocpor, all of 
Liskeard were summoned to answer the com- 
plaint of William Murray, tho high bailiff of tho 
Liskeard County Court, for that they did at the 
village of St. Germans, within the jurisdiction o£ 
the court, on Monday, 2l8t Sept. ansault Joseph 
Jago, one of the bailiffs of tho court, whilst in 
the execution of his duty as auoh bailiff. 

Raby appeared for the plaintiff. 

Sparkes, of Crediton (instructed by Bingston), 
represented the defendants. 

Raby, in opening tho case, stated that tho 
action was brought under a section of an Act of 
Parliament which states that any officer or 

Sparkes, interrupting, drew his Honour's atten- 
tion to the fact that they were summoned to 
answer the complaint of Mr. Murray for an 
assault on Joseph Jago. He submitted that th« 
person assaulted should have been the one to 
outer the plaint. 

Hia Honour.— The high bailiff summons now 
for an assault on his servant. 

Sparkes— I can nnderatjind an action for osaanlt 
and battery being brought by a master for a ser- 
vant, and if this be such an aotiou thou the proper 
form has not been observed, because there is no 
plaintiff or defendant. This was either a sum- 
mons from the County Court, or it was not. If it 
waa it must be taken out by the party assaulted, 
or if it be a civil process it ought to follow in tho 
rule of civil processes, and there should have been 
an ordinary summons taken out. 

His Honour could not allow the objection to 
stand. This was a summary process, and they 
had better hear the merits of tho case. 

Raby then stated the foots. In tho month of 
September last tho bailiff of thia court, under a 
warrant, proceeded to St. Germans and levied on 
the goods of a Charles Pantor. Tho plaintiff em- 
ployed was Jago, who on arriving at St. Germans 
fouud Panter there, and also another man, who 
stated that he waa in possostiun of tho goods. Ha .] 
asked him to produce his authority, when he 
replied that ho had noue there. Shortly after, 
wards Mr. Spry, the auctioneer, arrived for the 
purpose of seUing the gixids, but had no authority. 
Thia geutleman left the premises, but returned 
again, in company with a clerk in the employ of 
Mr. Hingston, who produced a document and 
road it. "The sale was proceeded with, and m 
horse brought from a sUiblu which had been looked 


Jigitized by 




[Nov. 14, 1874. 

by Jago. The lock bad been broken, and on tbo 
liorao being brought out Ja^o laid hold of it. Ho 
yraa then assaulted, and the animal reacnod from 


Jago was collod, and in answer to Mr. Baby 
said he was a sub-bailiff of the court, and pro- 
duced his authority. 

Sparkes requested liia Honour's attention to 
this document. He first of all objected to it on 
the ground that bciug an appointment to an 
office of profit it must be stamped. 

Hia Honour. — I very much doubt if an appoint, 
ment of this kind requires a stamp. 

Sjparkcs. — The registrar's appointment requires 
a stamp. 

His HoNOUE. — There is a difference of opinion 
in the Inland BeTeuue OfHce itself on this 

Sparkes then complained that the document did 
not bear any evidence on the face of it, showing 
that the appointment had been allowed by the 

i'udge as provided by the Act of Parliament, but 
lis Honour being against him on this point, the 
evidence of Jago was proceeded with, and agreed 
with ihe opening statement of Mr. Raby. The 
assault complained of was, that on the plaintiff 
taking hold of the bridle of the horse when it was 
tronght from the stable, John Poolcy caught him 
by the collar and '' knuckled " him under the 
chin. Spry, at the same time, saying, " I will 
relieve the horso," and cutting the reins with a 

Cross-examined by Sparkes, Jago said : — I know 
a man named Taylor, he was acting as an under 
bailiff on the day in question, and joined me at 
the house of Fanter, and remained in possession. 
I gave the warrant to Taylor by Mr. Murray's 
order. He told mo that Taylor should take pos- 
eession. I was to remain there as well. At the 
time the assault was committed, Tajlor held the 
warrant, and was in possession inside the house. 
My duty was to look after what was on the 
premises. When Taylor was indoors I was out. 
jSlr. Spry ordered the horso to bo brought out. I 
did not hear John Pooley ask Taylor for the keys, 
nor see them given up. The slaughter.houso, 
where the horse was, is is in an orchard, which 
is entered by a gate. This gate I found locked 
on my arrival, and [ entered the orchard by going 
through the dwelling house. The horse was in 
the house, and I put a lock of my own on the 
door. I did not bco the lock broken open, but I 
saw it afterwards. I laid hold of the horse, as a 
portion of my duty, and my intention was to h&va 
taken it to some jilaoe of safety. 

His HoNOUE here said that ho thought the man 
■was in the elocution of his duty, in endeavouring 
to get back what had been rescued, and if a per- 
son put his little finger on the car of Jago it would 
constitute an assault. 

Witness continuing, said. — I saw Mr. Harvey 
(Mr. Kingston's clerk) at the house before the 
scuffle about the horse, but to the best of my 
knowledjje I did not ask him if there was a bill of 
sale. He said that hu bad one, and read some- 

Sparkes. — You knew all about a bill o£ sale ? — 
A. — Yes. 

His Honour. — Yon know whether it conveyed 
all the goods or not ? 

Witness. — I believe it did. 

His HoNOUE. — Then why do you fence about 
the question like thiit. Do you really mean to tell 
me that you did not know what it was, or to whom 
the property was assigned ? 

Witness. — It was all done and read so qnick. 

Cross-examination continued : — I did not hear 
Mr. Man ay say that he would not listen to 
Pooley, neither did Mr. Murray tell me to go and 
get Panter in order that he might bo made a bank- 
rupt. I do not recollect his saying this to anyone 
else. Mr. Murray and Panter had a conversation 
in the orchard, but I can't tell what it was. 
Among those who were present were two members 
of the Cornish constabulary, but I did not not ask 
them to t ike the three defend.auts into custody. 

His HoNOUK said he thought the dispute was a 
purely legal one. Was Jago in legal possession of 
the goods at the time P The facts must be 
assumed. Jago goes to the premises with a 
warrant and levies. Shortly afterwards Mr. 
Harvey comes with a bill of Rale in bis bands, and 
the question now was whether or not the bailiff was 
bound to give up possession. 

Sparkes.— Before the warrant was issued there 
•was a bill of sale executed, dated 5th September, 
from Panter to Spry, and which included inter 
alia this very horse. 

His Honour. — That bill of sale was not regis- 

Sparkes. — But the levy was made within twenty- 
one days of its execution, and there is an abun- 
dance of authorities which state that until the 
lapse of twenty-one days there is no necessity for 
registering. Ho then referred to the case of 
Marpler v. Earthy (30 L. J. 92, Q. B.), and that of 
Bombury v. White (32 L. J. 258, Ex.), which 
showed that the bill of sale, although not regis- 

tered within the twenty-one days, was good if put 
in force oven after the sheriff had taken posses- 
sion un'ler a warrant. 

His Honour. — All you have to know then is 
that possession was taken under the bill of sale. 
Possession may be taken after the sheriff has 
levied, provided it be within the twenty-one days, 
and the witness states that in this case the bill of 
sale was read to him, and by the person holding 
the bill of sale taking possession the sherifc was 

Raby said the only question was whether the 
assault was committed whilst Jago was in the 
execution of his duty. 

His Honour. — I cannot say it was, because his 
duty was to have asked the date of the bill of 
tale and then to have withdrawn, but instead of 
this he does not even attempt to find out anything 
about the document. There consequently must 
be no order. 

This is virtually a verdict for the defendants, 
but hia Honour had no power to make any order 
as to the costs. 


Thursday, Nov. 5. 

(Before E. J. Metnell, Esq., Judge.) 

MooBE i". Henderson. 

Parent's Uairility for child's maintenance. 

Mabane for tho plaintiff. 

O. R Duncan for tho defendant. 

His Honour. — This was an action brought by 
the plaintiff for the support of the defendant's 
child. It appears that the defendant and his wife 
are living separate. She resides with her mother, 
the plaintiff, and the child was born since tho 
separation. There was no evidence of any con- 
tract by the defendant to pay tho plaintiff for the 
support of his child, but it was argued that ho 
was legally bound to do so. The defendant's 
advocate relied on Unnston v. Nevjconitnan 
(4 A. & E. 899). I have looked into the case, and 
it leaves undecided the question whether a father 
who deserts his child is liable for noocsstiriea for 
it. I am disposed to think that if it ever becomes 
necessary to decide tho precise point, it will be 
held he is not. In the case of Morti^Twr v. 
Wright (6 M. & W. 482), Parke, B., says, " It is 
a clear point of law that a father is not under any 
legal obligation to pay his son's debts, except 
indeed by proceedings under 43 Eliz., by 
which he may, under certain circumstances, be 

oooipcllcd to aupporb lua obildron &aoordin0 bo 

his liability, but the mere moral obligation to do 
so cannot impose upon him any legal liability." 
It is not necessary to decide tho question in this 
case, because I think it is not proved that the 
defendant deserted his child. He was examined, 
and said that he asked his wife to live with him, 
and she would not, and he would keep her if she 
would come to his house. The wife denied that 
he had asked her to go to his house ; but she 
admitted that she was not willing to live with 
him. There is quite as much or more evidence, 
therefore, that the wife has deserted her husband 
as that he had deserted her. My judgment must 
be for the defendant. 


Friday, Oct. 23. 

(Before J. Worlledqe, Esq., Judge.) 

County Court warrants — Wrongful seizure — 

Damages against the bailiff. 
Wiltshire appeared for Kingwood. 

C. Diver for the high bailitf of the County Court. 

It appeared that in consequence of a judgment 
against a Mr. Kingwood in the Bury County 
Court, Knowles, the bailiif, proceeded to execute 
a distraint on Mr. Ringwood's goods. Knowles 
ascertained that a Mr. S. Ringwood, a cab pro- 
prietor, resided in Pier-place, and he therefore 
went and seized some of tho furniture. Ringwood 
then threatened to do him some bodily harm, and 
claimed XI ISs. for his goods being taken awoy. 
A question was raised as to whether the right 
Ringwood had been proceeded against. 

Divtr contended that he had, and asked that a 
fine should be imposed upon Ringwood for the 

Knowles, the bailiff, was sworn, and proved 
going to defendant's for the purpose of seizing 
certain goods, when Ringwood refused to let him 
execute his duty. He took off his coat and turned 
up his shirt sleeves and drew bis guard at 
Knowles, but did not strike him, although he 
threatened to knock his brains out. Witness 
sort an assistant, who accompanied him, for a 
policeman, and also a barrow in which to re- 
move the furniture. The assistant having left, 
the defendant, who had gone out came back 
and again took off his coat and said he would 
have Knowles out. He said ho would give him 
throe chances to go, and if he did not go then he 
would turn him out. The witness refused to 
budge, saying he would rather die than flinch 
from his duty, and Ringwood seized hold of him 

and a tussle ensued, the result of which was that 
Knowles was pitched out of tho liouso. Shortly 
afterwards the assistant returned with a police- 
man and a barrow, and a chair and sofa and stand 
were taken away, the door being broken open in 
order to get at tho goods. The defendant had, in 
the meantime, left the house. An interpleader 
summons, and a summons for the assault were 
then issued, and Knowles had to go to New- 
market to serve them on Ringwood. 

Cross-examined. — Ringwood told witness he bad 
filled in his name in a previous case, when he was 
not the defendant. Witness had done so. De- 
fendant did not toll witness that he had nothing 
to do with the case. He did not leave his assistant 
and go for a policeman himself, booanse he knew 
if he had done so the assistant would have been 
thrown out of the house. On a previous occasion 
he had a distress warrant against Frederick Ring- 
wood, and he wont to 4, Fier-terrrace, to seize 
some goods, but the defendant claimed them, and 
witness witlxdrew. Defendant did not tell witness 
he did not know the plaintiff, and had never had 
any dealings with him. 

Thomas Button, assistant bailiff, gave corrobo- 
rative evidence. 

The plaintiff was called, and stated it was Ring- 
wood tho elder whom he intended tho warrant to 
apply to. 

His Honour expressed his surprise that more 
care was not exercised in issuing warrants. It 
appeared that the warrant had no Christian name 
attached, but as tho defendant had on a former 
occasion said in court he was the only cab pro- 
prietor in Yarmouth of the name of Ringwood, the 
bailiff assumed he was the man. 

Samuel Ringwood, sworn, stated that he was 
the only cab proprietor in Yarmouth named Ring- 
wood, and tlmt his father did not reside in Yar- 
mouth. He told Knowles thit he had nothing to 
do with Woolnough, and Knowles jeered him, 
saying, " We shall see." That aggravated wit- 
ness, and he did what he ought not to have done. 
The goods Knowles took away were his property, 
and he valued them at £5. 

Cross-examined : He lived at 4, Pier.terraoe, 
and the furniture in the house belonged to him. 
His brother Frederick and his wife lived with 
him. He also hired the house in Temon-terraoe, 
and the furniture there. He kept the house for 
his mother when she came down. He kept two 
houses because he let lodgings. He had been put 
to a good deal of inconvenience in coming to Yar- 
zuouth frum Newmarket wfiere his horses and cabs 
were. Just now was the busiest time there, and 
he had lost something considerable in coming to 
the court. 

His Honour observed that he had come to 
answer the summons for assaulting the bailiff, and 
he could not be allowed anything for that. 

Wiltshire, on behalf of Rmgwoed, submitted 
that Knowles did not use proper discretion in 
serving the writ. There was no Christian name, 
and having had somo ditficulty with Ringwood 
before he ought to have taken more care, and not 
been so fast in his movements. Ringwood told 
him he was not the man, and asked bim to tele- 
graph to Thetford about it. It might have been 
ascertained whether Ringwood was the man or 
not before the warrant was put into execution. 

His Honour said he thought Knowles WM 
bound to execute the warrant. 

Wiltshire replied that Knowles should h»T8 
ascertained he was the right man first. 

His Honour said Ringwood answered to the 
description, because he he said he was the only 
cab proprietor in Yarmouth. 

Wiltshire said no doubt Ringwood had acted 
with indiscretion in the heat of the moment 
through seeing hia goods taken away. 

His Honour said the duty of a County Conrt 
bailiff was a very unpleasant one, and the pablio 
must know that they could not assault them with 
impunity. Defendant had no doubt acted under 
excitement, and he should not fine him heavily, 
but he was wrong in having assaulted the bailiif, 
who was only carrying out his duty. 

Wiltshire contended that Ringwood should be 
allowed damages for the removal of his fumitoze. 
Dicer denied, on behalf of Knowles, that he 
jeered at Ringwood, and said Knowles had only 
done his duty in a proper manner. He contended 
that Ringwood had not suffered any harm by the 
removal of the furniture, and that he was not 
entitled to damages. 

His Honour, in giving judgment, said the 
bailiff had primafacie reasons for serving the exe- 
cution upon Ringwood, as he had said he was the 
the only cab proprietor of that name in Yarmouth. 
He was acting in the execution of his duty, and in 
all cases of that sort he should feel it incumbent 
upon him to protect the bailiffs. But this »«• 
was not so bad as some, and he should only BM 
the defendant 408. He hoped that would be a 
warning to others, and if the bailiff did wrongi 
and they came to the court, he would give thMi 
redress, but ho would always protect tho bainns 
from being molested in the execution of their 
duty. With regard to the interpleader caae M 

Digitized by 


Nov. 14, 1874.] 



Samuel Rinqxeood ▼. The Bigh Bailiff, the bailiff 
"vraa wtouk m te,)uag the gpoods, and they wonld 
lutive to be retamed, and he should award Bin^ 
"Wood JBI for damafres he had loataiaed. He hoped 
lie ehonld not have to pat the Act in force amtin. 
If people thought the bailiffs exceeded their duty, 
lihey oonld come to the conrt, bnt the; mast not 
' distarb the bailiffs in the ezecntion of their daty. 


(Before T. E. F. LintoT, Esq.. jndge.) 

Batxbstock ▼. Cox. 

Collision — Rule of the road. 

■ ClUXU, ^13 19a. ; damages BOBtained. 

Tanner for plaintiff. 

B. N. Howard tar defendant. 

Mr. BaTeretook and Ilrs. Moore were called in 
support of the claim ; and Mr. Topp, Mr. Cox, 
Miss Lovelace, and a lad named Fenton for the 

It seemed that Mr. Baverstook, on the 21st of 
AngtiBt last, was driviner his annt, Mrs. Moore, 
from Hill Untts to Wimbome. When near the 
brow of Stone HiU he was driven into by de- 
fendant, his pony killed, and the carriage mnoh 
mjnred. Defendant was in a high cart, and was 
driving a horse 15.2 in height. In his cart were 
hia sisters and a remale named Lovelace. Mr. 
SavorBtook and bis aunt were both thrown from 
their vehicle, as were also defendant and the ether 
oocnpants of his cart. For the defence it was 
alleged that plaintiff was on his wrong side ; but 
Miss Lovelace stated that some little distance 
before the collision she told.defendant there was 
" aoraething coming ;" whereupon His Hononr 

ere judgment for plaintiff, holding that defendant 
d ample time to avert the accident. 
Hovoard said he should apply for a case against 
ttie dedBian. 


I ___ 


I Monday, Nov. 9, 

(Before W. Fubksb, Ebci., Judge.) 

' Be BosTZL. 

The powers of a tmstee under a composiiion. 

i A MOTION was made by Mr. William Botting. 

, bjiilder, Bhip-street, Brighton, and a creditor of 
Darnel Thomas Boslsl, e» i i i t» ij mgi^vom, DokB-. 

' street, Brighton, who had filed procMdings under 

, sections 125 and 126 of the Bankruptcy Act 1869, 
bjr his solicitor, Mr. Lamb, for the court to deter- 
mine whether Mr. Frederick Oeorge Clark, being 

, appointed a trustee for receipt and distribution 
<nuy of the composition in the proceedings re- 
ferred to, under rule 279 of the Bankruptcy Bnles 
1870, had any power to decide for what amount 
Hr. Botting coald claim for the purpose of parti- 
cipating in the composition resolved by the credi- 

' im to be accepted in discharge of their several 
olaime ; and if Mr. Clark had any power to reject 
the proof tendered by Mr. Botting in support of 
lii* claim. 

Warner Sleigh, instructed by A. V. Qell, of the 
firm of Messrs. Black, Freeman, and Qell, 
appeared for the trustee. 

Briefly, the question which Lanib raised was 
-whether, under the mle mentioned,the trustee waa 
empowered to reject any debt. 

Sleigh pointed out that from rules 252 to 315, 
was a set of roles for certain purposes and all the 
purposes analogous. The heading of the 252nd 
was " Freceedinge for li(^nidation by arrangemeat 
-or composition with creditors ;" that was that the 
vnodus operandi of liquidation or composition was 
the same in either case, whichever was taken, so 
far as these rales went. The oondnding clause of 
mle 279 waa, " and they may name some person 
as trustee for receipt and distribution of the com- 
position " — not as agent, not as bankrupt, not 
simply as receiver, bnt as trustee. And a trustee 
bad responsibilities to bear, and duties to per- 
form, not merely as trnstee for property, not 
nerel; as a receiver, but as a trustee to see that 
■Vie property was properly managed. The mle 
318 stated the mode of proceedings under liqnida- 
-tion or composition ; wherever the tmstee rejected 
the claim or proof of any creditor, he should give 
notice to the creditor. 

Lamb asserted that notice -was not given until 
• month after the proceedmge were closed, and 
contended that it ought to have been given be- 
fore they were properly filed. 

Bleigh remarked that at the meeting itself, 
notice was given that a majority was against Mr. 
Botting, and that the claim wonld not be allowed : 
and maintained that the delay was not fatal, and 
that the question to be decided was, had the 
tmstee the same dnties to perform under com- 
position as under liquidation P 

This qnestion Lamb replied to in the negative, 
bddiog that, as far as composition was concerned, 
the trustee was merely a recipient of a certain 
jsam of money for diBtribnUon only. Whether 

the debt was £1000 or JB500 was to him a matter 
of no oonscquenoe ; bnt where a man was trustee 
nnder liquidation — where there was a general dis- 
tribution of property among the creditors — then 
the trustee had a jierfeot right to come forward 
and say that he objected to a claim. 

His HoNonn held that it was incumbent upon 
the creditor to come before the court and establish 
his claim, and decided that the trustee had the 
same power to reject a claim nnder composition as 
under liquidation. 

Costs were allowed to the tmstee. 


Friday, Oct. 23. 

(Before A. Mabtinkau, Esq., Judge.) 


Sect. 92 B. A. 1869 — Fraudulent preference— 
Essential conditions — Proviso in sect, 92 — Bur- 
den of proof of good faith. 
Two applications were made on behalf of the 
tmstee, Mr. Spencer Dominy, of Waterloo-street, 
Birmingham, the nature of which appears in the 

The trustee was represented by W. Shakespeare, 
BoUoitor, Oldbury ; and 

T. U. WhUehouse, (of the firm of T. M. and J. 
Whitehouse, Wolverhampton), appeared for Mr. 
David Hill, of Sedgley, one of the creditors. 

His HoNOUB said : There are two applications 
in this matter by Mr. Dominy, the tmstee in liqui- 
dation. The first application ia that Mr. David 
Hill may be ordered to pay the trustee a sum of 
i£610 10s. 4d., being the amount of certain bills 
and cheques which were made over by Smith, one 
of the debtors, to HiU, in payment or satisfaction 
of a principal sum of ^£500, together with the 
interest due from Smith to Hill on a promissory 
note. The seoond application is, tiiat the Dudley 
and West Bromwich Bank may be ordered to pay 
to the trustee the sum of J&S7 19s., being the 
-value of certain iron which was sold or made 
over to the bank by the debtors, as a security 
for, or in part satisfaction of, a debt of £500 
owing by the firm to the bank. In both cases 
the tinstee seeks to recover the amount claimed 
on the ground that the transaction was a fraudu- 
lent preference within the meaniag of the 92nd 
section of the Bankruptcy Act 1869. I reserved 
judgment in order that I might consider the recent 
decisions on the effect of the 92nd section of the 
Act. I d o not t hink t here is mnch diffic ulty w ith 
ref^^enoe W llie law uu tuis suuieot. nDraer-to 
constitute a fraudulent pieferenoe within the 
meaning of the 92nd section, two things must 
ensue : First, the debtor must be unable to pay 
his debts, as they become due, from hia own 
moneys ; secondly, the conveyance transfer or 
payment must be made in favour of a creditor, 
with a view of giving such creditor a preference 
over the other creditors. According to the con- 
struction which has been put on the words, 
" with a view of giving such creditor a preference 
over the other creditors," it must be made out to 
the satisfaction of the conrt that the debtor's sole 
motive was to prefer the creditor peud to tiie 
other creditors, otherwise the payment cannot 
be impeached. So that if there is a mixed motive, 
and the debtor' is partly infiuenced by a demand 
of the creditor, or by negotiations with him, the 
act is not a purely voluntary act, and is not a 
fraudulent preference, although the creditor may 
be a friend whom the debtor wishes to prefer : 
(See Ex parte Blackburn, L. Bep. 12 Eq. 363 ; 
Ex parte Tempest, L. Bep. 6 Ch. 76 ; Ex parte 
Topham, L. Bep. 8 Ch. 618.) It is further pro- 
vided by the ninety-second section that the 
section shall not affect the rights of a pnrchaser, 
payee, or encumbrancer in good faith and for 
valuable consideration. It has been held that the 
protection given by those words extends to the 
creditor who ia preferred as well as to those 
claiming nnder him, and that if a creditor for 
valuable consideration has no notice or suspicion 
that hia debtor is in insolvent circnmstancee 
when the payment or transfer by way of frandn- 
lent preference is made to him, he is protected : 
(See Ex parte Blackburn, 12 Ex. 365 ; Ex parte Tern, 
pest, 6 Ch. 75; Ex parte Butcher, 9 Ch. 598; 
Ex parte Winter, (16 £q. 401). This being the 
law bearing on the snbjcKit of the present appli- 
cation, I irill now consider the facts of each oise 
separately. I will take Bill's case first. The 
debtors— who carried on business in partnership, 
nnder the firm of Thomas and Smith, as iron- 
masters, at the Bradley Iron Works — filed their 
petition for liauidation on the 17th March last. 
They then owed upwards of £12,000. Their assets 
amounted to £4000 at the most. They were there- 
fore utterly insolvent. The transfer or payment 
made to Hill, which is impeached as a fraudulent 
preference, was made on the 11th March, six days 
before the petition was filed. I understand that 
it was not disputed that at the time of the tr&nsfer 
or payment made to Hill, the debtors were unable 
to pay their debts, as they became due, from their 
own moneys. No question vraa raised by Mr. 

Motteram, who argued the case for the respon- 
dent, as to the suffieieno^ of the evidence of 
insolvency. The first condition, therefore, neces- 
sary to constitute a fraudulent preferenoe mi^ht 
be treated as complied with. The evidence which 
the tmstee 'contended proved that the impeached 
transfer or payment was made with a view of 
giving HiU a preference over the other creditors, 
consists of the examination of the respondent 
taken under sect. 97 of the Act. Mr. Shakespeare, 
on behalf of the tmsteex, proposed to read against 
HiU, the examination of Smith taken nnder the same 
section, bnt I held that it could not be read against 
Hill, and that if the trustee -wished to avail him- 
self of the evidence of Smith he must caU him as a 
witness in the nsnal mode. Hill's acoonnt of the 
matter is this : The debtors entered into partner, 
ship in the beginning of 1870. Smith was HiU's 
brother-in-law, having married BiU's sister. To 
enable Smith to start the ironworks, HiU lent 
Smith £500 on the security of Smith's promissory 
note. The note, which bears date ISth Jan. 1870, 
runs as foUows : "On demand I promise to pay 
David HiU £500." No appUcation was made by 
HiU to Smith for payment nntU about two years 
after the loan. Then HOI told Smith that he 
mnst pay interest on the note, and the principal 
as Boon as he possibly could. Smith said he 
wonld see to it. From that time, viz., Jan. 1872, 
or thereabouts — the precise date is not stated — 
up to the time of the impeached transferor pay- 
ment, HUl, on seven or eight different occasions, 
asked for payment of the debt. Smith generaUy 
said he would see to it. On one occasion he said 
they (meaning the firm) had been laying out 
money on the works, and gave that as a reason 
for not paying, and intimated that he was short 
of money. Some coolness appears to have 
arisen between HiU and his sister, Mrs. Smith, 
in consequence of which HUl did not go to 
Smitii's house. He never went to the works of 
the firm at aU, and it seems, according to 
HiU's aoooont, that these appUcations for pay- 
ment were made from time to time, when 
HiU met Smith accidentaUy in the street. HiU 
never made any written appUcation for payment 
of tiie debt. On one occasion, about January 
1874^ HiU went to hia attorney to consult him 
about enforcing payment. His attorney then 
asked HiU whether he wished him to issne a writ 
against his own brother-in-law P HiU said he did 
not, and accordingly no legal proceedings were 
ever ti^en to enforce myment. In the early part 
of the present year Hill had a serious illness. 
Bnditk -iA«B — mn to see him, and on one or more 
of the occasions on which Smith came, HiU told 
him he mnst have the money, giving as a reason 
that he wished to settle his affairs. Smith then 
said " Do not put yourself about ; I wiU bring it 
again as soon as I possibly can." On the 11th 
March Smith came to Hill's house, to make the 
transfer or payment which is impeached. He 
brought with him biUs and cheques of cnstomers 
of the firm, payable to the firm, amoanting in the 
aggregate to the exact sum of £610 10s. 4d. Smith 
went into some calculation of principal and in- 
terest on a piece of paper. The principal sum was 
£500, to that was added interest at 5 per cent, for 
about four years, and a sum by way of aUowanoe 
in respect of some of the biUs which were not yet 
due. The sum total, as I understand the aooount 
given by HUl, was a sum of not exactly 
£610 10s. 4d., the anregate amount of the bills 
and the cheques ; stiU a sm so near that for con- 
venience, and by way of setUement, the biUs and 
cheques were taken as the equivalent of the debt 
due to HiU for principal and interest. AU these 
bUls and cheques were bills and cheques of 
customers of the firm, payable to the firm. 
In the absence of any exphuiation on the part 
HiU, or evidence to the contrary, I think 
it must be taken that the bills and cheques 
belonged to the firm, and were assets of the 
firm, and not separate or private property 
of Smith. HiU then handed to Smith the pro 
missory note, and gave him a receipt for the 
£610 lOs. 4d. This appears to me to be HUl's 
account of the matter. HiU admits in the course 
of his examination and cross-examination that ho 
did not expect Smith to come on the day on which 
Smith made the transfer or payment, and that the 
payment was quite unexpected ; indeed, a perfect 
Ood-send. He also admits that Smith may have 
Bud that he thought it his duty to take care of 
him (HUl), as he had had his money so long, or 
something to that effect, and that Smith said he 
did not bow what might tnm up or hapipen, or 
something to that effect, and he also admits tiiat 
he did not ask what this meant ; but he denies 
that he had any notice or suspicion that the firm 
were in difBcnltiea, or abont to fail. He also 
admits that after the faUure he asked Smith 
whether he had entered the amount of his pay- 
ment in his books ; his reason for asking that 
question being that be wished the creditors might 
see the whole of tiie transaction, and the amount 
of money he had received. These are the facts as 
stated by HiU. There is no other evidence before 
me. Inmy opinion the transfer or paymsnti"'' 

Digitized by 




[Nov. 14, 1874. 

by Smith to Hill was made with the view of pro- 
ferrinii Hiil to the other creditors. It is true that 
the tratiafer or payment waa preceded by applica- 
tiODB for payment ; bat I think the true construc- 
tion in that Smith was in no way influenced by the 
demand by Hill in making the transfer or 
payment in question. It was insisted oa the 
part of the trustee — first, that the transfer 
of the bills and cheques for .£tilO 10s. id. to 
Hill, under the above circumstances was a 
fraudulent preference within the 92nd section. 
2nd. Tliat inasmuch as Hill was a creditor of 
Smith only, and not a creditor of the firm, the 
transfer of the notes and cheques to Hill was 
made without any consideration moving to the 
firm, and that on that ground the trustee was 
entitled to recover back the amount claimed. 
3rd. That at all events two years' interest was 
paid to Hill in excess of what he waa entitled to, 
inasmuch as interest ran not from the date but 
from the demand. On the part of Hill it was 
contended — 1st. That tho transfer or payment 
was not a fraudulent preference within the mean- 
ing of this section, inasmuch as the transfer or 
payment was made by tho debtor under the pres- 
sure of a demand for payment made by Hill. 
2nd. That assuming that it was a fraud, still that 
Hill had no motive or suspicion that the debtors 
were in insolvent circumstances, and that he in 
CAtitled to the benefit of the proviso at the end of 
the 92nd section, as being a payee in good faith 
for valuable consideration. 3rd. That inasmuch 
as Hill was a creditor for value of Smith, and re- 
ceived the bills and cheques in payment of his 
debt, and gave up his security on the faith of the 
transfer of the bills and cheques, the transfer or 
payment was in law for valuable consideration. 
I may objserve that tho effect of the application 
of partnership assets in payment of a separate 
debt as being in itself an act of bankruptcy was 
dot discu8»cd, and that the argument on both 
sides was directed to tho question of fraudulent 
preference under the y2nd section, and the effect 
of the proviso at the end of the section as 
protecting Hill. I have therefore considered tho 
question of fraudulent preference. The facts 
which in my opinion indicate that tha sole motive 
which influenced Smith was that of preferring 
Hill to the other creditors are these :— First, Hill 
was a near relation or connection ; secondly, up 
to within a few days before the debtors filed their 
petition for liquidation, and for a period of two 
years, Smith had paid no attention whatever o 
any of Hill's demands beyond making vagfto 
promises to eeo to the payment : thirdly, nboxk 
Smith did make the payment he did not pay with 
bis own proper monoys, but handed over to bis 
separate creditor trade bills and cheques of 
customers of the firm payable to the firm, and 
that at a time when the firm was utterly in- 
solvent, and when he knew that tho assets 
belonged to the joint creditors. It is a singular 
circumstance, but I do not lay stress on it, that 
Hill received in effect about .£50 more than was 
legally duo to him, insomuch as interest waa 
calculated from the date of ihe note, and not from 
the time the demand was first made. It is also a 
singular circumstance, but I do not lay stress on 
it, that the aggregate amount of tho bills and 
cheques belonging to tho firm handed over to 
Hill were the exact equivalent of the sum ascer- 
tained to bo due to Hill for principal and interest 
on Smith's promissory noto. Tho facts I have 
mentioned, and particularly the fact that the 
payment was made by handing over the assets of 
tho firm, seem to me to indicate that the sole 
object was to give H ill a pref erenoe over the other 
creditors. Mr. Motteram, on behalf of Hill, 
urged that the burden of proof is on tho trustee. 
I think that is so, but it appears to me that, on 
Hill's own showing, the transfer or payment 
was a fraudulent preference within tho mean- 
ing of the 92nd section. It then becomes neces- 
sary to consider whether Hill is entitled to 
the benefit of the proviso at the end of the 92nd 
section. I think as regards the proviso the burden 
is cast on Hill of satisfying the court that he 
received payment of the debt in good faith and 
for valuable consideration without notice or sus- 
picion that the firm were in insolvent circum- 
stances. It is so in cases under the 9-lth and 
95th section; see Ex parte SchuUz (9 Ch.). Hill 
has failed to satisfy me that be had no notice. 
For two years ho had been unsuccessful in getting 
his brother-in-law to attend to his repeated appli- 
cations for payment, he oould not even get 
interest, and then on a sudden his brother-in-law 
oomes to his house and hands over to him bills 
and securities of the firm in payment of the debt, 
and that transfer or payment is accompanied by 
the expression, " I do not know what may 
happen, " or something to that effect, words 
which would, I think, under the circumstances, 
create suspicion. Hill, in his cross-examination, 
admits that if he had not been in ill-health he 
should have inquired what that expression meant. 
In my opinion Hill cannot bo considered as a 
transfer or payee in good faith, and for valuable 
consideration, receiving the transfer and payment 

without notice of the insolvency of the debtor 
making the transfer or payment. I have con- 
sidered this case in reference to the arguments 
addressed to me. I should, however, observe 
that I do not see how Hill can avail himself of tho 
proviso at the end of sect. 91. The bills and 
cheques made over to Hill belonged to the firm, 
and the firm in fact were paying a separate debt 
of one of the partners out of the assets of the 
firm. As Hill was a creditor of Smith's, and gave 
up his promissory note upon receiving the bills 
and cheques, the transaction may be con- 
sidered a dealing for valuable consideration ; 
but 1 doubt whether Hill could be con- 
sidered as a creditor for valuable considerations 
within the meaning of the proviso. The payment 
was in fact made by the firm who wore not liable 
to pay, and no consideration moved to the firm 
Assuming, however, that Hill could be considered 
as a creditor for valuable consideration within the 
meaning of the proviso, still I think the transfer 
of the bills and sccnrities of the firm was an act 
of bankruptcy, and fraudulent : See Ex parte 
Sneiiliill (7 Ch. 546), where it was laid down that 
it is a fraud upon the creditors of a firm for a 
partner, who knows that the firm is insolvent, to 
transfer partnership assets to a creditor of his 
own, or to give a security over partnership assets 
for his own private debts, or for future advances 
to be made to himself. Such a transfer neces- 
sarily tends to defeat the creditors of the part- 
nership, and to prevent tho proper distribution of 
the assets under the bankruptcy law. In £x 
parte SneilhiU, MelHsh, L.J. observes : " It 
appears to us that if a person is proved to know 
facts which constitute an act of bankruptcy, or is 
proved to know facts from which a court or a 
jury, or any impartial person would naturally and 
properly infer that an act of bankruptcy had been 
committsd. he ought to have had notice that an 
act of bankruptcy had been committed, and that 
the court ought not to enter upon the inquiry 
whether he did in his own mind believe that an 
act of bankruptcy had been committed, or whether 
he did in his own mind draw the inference 
that the bankrupt intended to defeat and delay 
the creditors. A person may be proved to have 
hod notice that an act of bankruptcy had 
been committed, either by proof that he had re- 
ceived personal notice that an act of bankruptcy 
had been committed, or by proof that he knew 
facts which were sufficient to inform him that an 
act of bankruptcy had been committed. If he is 
proved to have received a personal notice, he is 

not i^ow«<l iK> o«<i^p« fa-oBA fclko offeofc of iMkviu)^ 

had notice by saying he had not read it when he 
ought to have read it, or that be did not believe 
it when he hod read it. And we think if he is 
proved to have known facts which were sufficient 
to have informed him that an act of bankruptcy 
had been committed, he cannot be allowed to 
escape from the fact of having had notice by 
saying he did not draw the natural inference 
from the facts." Now in this case Hill knew that 
partnership assets, to the extend of ,£G10 lOs. 4d. 
consisting of trade bills still running and cheques 
of customers, were being applied in payment of a 
separate debt due to him from one of the firm, an 
application of partnership assets wholly out of the 
usual and ordinary course of business. He knew 
that for two years Smith had been unable to pay 
him, and when tho payment is made Smith tells 
him that he does not know what might happen. 
He admits that his attention was called to the ex- 
pression, and that if he had been well he should 
have asked what iSmith meant, and his only excuse 
for nis not asking is his illness. I think the 
burden of proof that he had no notice of an act of 
bankruptcy having been committed is upon Hill : 
(See Pearson v. Oraham, 6 Ad. <t Ell. 899, and 
i'x parte Schultt, 9 Ch.) Ho has failed to prove 
this to my satisfaction. Upon this part of the 
case I may observe that Hill has nut ventured to 
call his own brother-in-law to support the transac- 
tion. I am of opinion that Hill has not only 
failed to satisfy me that he had no notice of the 
act of bankruptcy, but that he must be deemed 
to have had notice of it. I am of opinion the 
trustee is entitled to recover the £610 10s. 4d. 
I shall therefore make an order that Hill do pay 
the trustee tho ^010 lOs. 4d. within a fortnight, 
and that ho poy the costs of tho application. 

Whitelioufi', addressing his Honour, said, whilst 
recognising the ability and research which the 
judgment indicated, yet he was bound to inform 
his Honour that Mr. UiU would, under the advice 
of eminent counsel, take steps to appeal against 
the judgment. 

His HoKOUB remarked that Mr. Whitohonse 
had a perfect right to advise his client to take 
that course. He was well aware that the deci- 
sions of judges were not always right, for the 
decisions of judges in tho higher courts were 
sometimes upset. 

His Honour then delivered his decision in the 
second application as follows : — The case of the 
Dudley and West Bromwich Bank is of a very 
different description. The facts are shortly those : 
The debtors kept an account at tho bank. On 

tiw , 



1st March there was a balance to the credit of th»- 
debtors of £i 8s. 4d. On 3rd March they ob. 
t&ined leave to overdraw their account to the ex. 
tent of .£500. The debtors overdrew their 
account to the full extent of their credit, ai 
on loth March, a cheque of the dehto: 
for w6273 7s. was presented at tho bank, and 
dishonoured. The manager immediately saw 
debtors, and insisted on the advance of JC500 beings 
covered, intimating that if it was not the matter 
would be placed in the hands of the solicitor to the 
bank, and a writ issued. Smith promised to pay 
part in cash, and the remainder in iron. On the 
lltb, the debtors placed to the order of the 
managers about thirty-six tons of pig iron, and 
paid to the credit of the account cash and cheqnes 
amounting to .£139 178. 4d. On tho 13th of 
March the pig iron, and some fencing which waa 
also placed to the credit of the manager, were 
treated as being equivalent to .£237 19a. A cheqi 
on the manager of the Bank, payable to tha 
debtors, or order, for ^287 19s., representing " 
iron, was then handed to Smith, who endors^ 
cheque in the name of the firm, and handed it' 
to the manager, to be placed to the credit of the 
account. In this mode the bank received in 
effect .£427 16s. 4d. on account of their debt of £500i 
Now it was contended that this was a fraudolaat 
preference within the meaning of the Act. Be- 
iiance was placed on some admissions made by tba 
manager in his examination. After stating that 
he insisted, on the lOth March, on the debtor 
covering tho advance made by the bank, the 
manager, in answer to the following question pot 
to him, viz. : " They gave you the iron willingly 
without any pressure ?" said " Oh, yes ; I 
bothered them for more;" and in answer to the 
question, " They raised no difficulty ?"8aid" No;" 
and in answer to the question, "There was not 
much pressure or refusal?" said, "No; th^ 
knew the consequences. I wanted more." I 
think, however, it is clear that the manager did 
not mean in any way to qualify his statemecta 
that he insisted on the debtors covering his ad- 
vance, and that they were told that a writ should 
bo issued if they did not ; and that what he means 
is that it was not necessary to repeat the domud 
or threat, as the debtors at once consented to pay 
a considerable poriion of the debt. I think these 
expressions which were, so to speak, put into his 
month, do not in any way effect the substance of 
tho statement made by the manager. In my 
opinion, not only was the transfer payment mad* 
in consequence of pressure pat upou biio debtors 
by Uie creditor, but tho debtors were in nc wajN 
influenced by a desire to give the bank a prefi 
enc8 over the other creditors. I think this appli*' 
cation of the trustee fails altogether, and that it 
must be refused with costs. 




The above question has recently been elaborately 
consideicd by the Irish Court of Queen's Beno^ 
The facts of the cose were these : — A bill of sala 
and an assignment of land were executed by tin 
bankrupt (Young) to the defendant (Moriarty), 
on tho going of the former to America. The 
bankrupt left IreUud on Nov. 22. The bill 
of sale and conveyance assigned all the bank- 
rupt's property in consideration of an antecedent 
debt. The deeds were executed and dated Not. 
21 ; but tho defendant had been previously in 
actual possession of tho lands and goods. The 
goods were sold by auction, at the defendant's in- 
stance, on Nov. 28 and 29. The deposition of the 
defendant, dated Jan. 21, 1873, in the bankruptcy 
proceedings, containing a statement of the cir- 
cumstances attending the assignments, was read 
at the trial. The plaintiff's counsel demanded of 
the learned judge to direct a verdict on the ad- 
mitted facts, insisting that the execution of ths 
deeds, upon those facts, was per se an act of 
bankruptcy ; the whole consideration being an 
antecedent debt, and the entire property of tlis 
bankrupt having been transferred for no other 
consideration to the defendant. Tho defendant's 
counsel contended that the question should have 
been left to the jury as to the " intent " of the 
bankrupt, and cited in support of their proposi- 
tion the case of Bell v. HiMpson (2 H. & N. 410). 
The learned judge (Barry, J.) left the case to the 
jury as required by defendant's counsel— hia own 
opinion, however, inclining to the view that the 
execution of the deeds amounted to an act of bank- 

Ix)rd Chief Justice Whiteside, after examin- 
ing several authorities, said : — Now, the argument 
pressed upon us by defendant's counsel was that, 
according to a series of authorities, the case mnit 
be left to the jury, as a question of intent, or as a 
mixed question of law and fact, and it was nrgf 
that even where a conveyance was impeached < 
the ground of its including all the property of t 
trader, yet the case was, with judicial directto>* 
submitted to a jury. Two oases were espeoii 
relied on by the defendant's counsel— BaU ▼• 
Simpsm (2 H. & N. 410), and iirouiiic T, JCwnpton 

Jigitized by 


"14,1874. J 



I (19 L. J. Ifi9). As to the former, which is not a 
Tery oompleto or satisfactory case, it is enough to 
j lay that it is only a case in which the bankrupt 
Faold a considerable quantity of his property 
I immediately before his bankruptcy, the conside- 
I ntion for which was partly an antecedent debt 
I and partly cash, j£50 being the debt, and £~0 only 
I Imiii^ the pieseut advance in cash. Now, here the 
Ijeoiisideration was wholly the antecedent debt, and 
like conTeyancea embraced all the trader's pro- 
I Certy, so that he could not continue trading one 
I aoar after they were acted upon. The distinotiou 
I between the cases is most clear and obvious. Nor 
[do 1 see how it makes any difference in principle 
Lirhether, in the present case, all the property was 
[ transferred to one creditor, the defendant, in 
[ September or in November — the nature of the act 
I ia the same. In Brovjn v. Kempton the court 
I hold that a direction to the jury was right 
[that, where a bankrupt paid a particular 
Mebt to a creditor, the payment, if induced 
Iby fair pressure, would not amount to a 
Inandnlent preference; that was a question 
JTOoperly left to a jury. In Young v. Vaud (8 Exch. 
|z30) Parke, B., cites and upholds the passage 
om Lord Mansfield's judgment in Worsley v. 
I Mattoa, which I have already quoted, and dis- 
shea the case before him as being a con- 
i Teyance of a moiety only of the bankrupt's 
Lproperty, the deed was not per se an act of bank- 
nptcy, and therefore, the case upon its circum- 
'anoes was properly left to the jury. The case 
t Qraham v. Chapman (12 C. 13. 85} is a leading 
8 npon the subject— all the authorities up to 
t date (1852) are there examined, and the prin- 
tfples which pervade them considered. The verdict 
for the defendant was changed into one for the 
fala in t iff s, the assignees. There only part of the 
' consideration was an antecedent debt, and part a 
•osent advance in cash. The facts were peculiar, 
aunuoh as the deed transferred all af ter-acquired 
loperty of the bankrupt, even although purchased 
by the cash then advanced, but, as the tra<Icr8 
t no real equivalent for the deed, the bankrupt's 
nsfer of all his property, it was ruled, neoes- 
ily defeated and delayed his creditors, and was 
herefore, an act of bankruptcy, without fraud in 
*kct. The counsel for the defendant there relied 
on the circumstance that the deed, impeached as 
an act of bankruptcy, was not executed for a 
■k^ne debt, but, as found by the jury, in con- 
sideration of a further advance. Jervis, C. J., 
Iclitorn on oiluinotive iudement. concluding thus : 
"The deed here is not for future advances, but 
!or a present payment and a bygone debt ; it con- 
all the trader's property, including the 
avance ; it necessarily defeats and delays credi- 
j and is, therefore, an act of bankruptcy." 
nd, notwithstanding the finding of the jury for 
he defendant, the verdict was entered for the 
plaintiffs, the assignees, pursuant to the leave 
flMerved. I think that the principle of the law of 
aptcy applicable to this case, and the dis- 
na tnereiu are well put and explained in the 
T Bale V. Alnutt (18 C. B. 505). Many of 
ea cited in the argument before us are there 
Hoed and observed npon. What is said by 
ird Abinger in Sicbert v, Spooner ia dwelt npon 
> argument, and applies here — " If a man assigns 
be whole of his effects, not for a new conside- 
ation, but for an outstanding debt, that is an act 
fit bankruptcy, because the very nature of the 
transaction prevents him from carrying on his 
liirade." A question of fraudulent preference 
trald be for the jury. No such case of fraudu- 
prefercnce was proved, and from the nature 
i deed it would be void, notwithstanding 
The cases, I believe I might say all the 
W, where the assignment of his property by 
i trader has been held void, or an act of bank- 
nptoy, are cases where the assignment was made 
ither without consideration or for an antecedent 
lebt. That is explained in a case relied upon by 
I defendant, Huttcm v. CnUhivU (1 E. & li. 
5), where Lord Campbell laid it down (p. 19) 
at, "if the deed wa.« executed in pursuance of a 
»Tion« understanding, and the trader received 
tthe time of such understanding an adequate 
lomideration, it is aa if the deed had been exe- 
oted at that time." There the loan waa in April, 
nd the deed, according to the agreement for the 
Dan, was executed in June. There the case was, 
gander the circumstances, left to the jury, who 
fouidfor the defendant. In the judgment (p. 21) 
lord Campbell, C.J. states, " So far this is the 
common case of a bill of sale bona fide given to 
»ecnre an advance made, on the faith of the 
Mcnrity, to enable a trader to carry on his busi- 
ness ; and it is well established law that such a 
bill of sale ia not an act of bankruptcy, although 
H would bo au act of bankruptcy, if the conside. 
ration were either wholly or partly an antecedent 
debt, oo.ntructed without security ;" and that, he 
says, was the foundation of the judgment in 
Oraham v. Chapman. In the course of the argu- 
ment in the latter case (p. 94), Jervis, C.J. asks, 
" When did it first become a settled matter of 
law that an assignment of alia trader's property 
Won aot of bankruptcy f " It waa answered by 

Bramwell and Willes, ori7ucn<jo, " in Woraeley v. 
De Maltos (1 Bur. 4C1.)" The Chief Justice re- 
ferred to Devon v. Watts (1 Doug. 86.) In a note 
to Qraham v. Chapman, it is said to have boon de- 
cided earlier in Law v. Skinner (2 W. B. 996), which 
is there asserted to have been decided in Easter 
Term 15 Geo. 2. Now, when we examine the 
books we find WorsUy v. De Mattos (1 Bur. 478) 
to have been decided in Hilary Term, 31 Geo. 2 
(where it is that Lord Mansfield lays it down 
emphatically, that " a conveyance of all must 
either be fraudulently kept secret, or produce an 
immediate absolute bankruptcy ") and Law v. 
m-inner was decided in Easter Term, 15 Geo. 3. 
The latter case ia a very direct authority on the 
point. There Appleford, the trader, in considera- 
tion of ^300, assigned to the plaintiff two mes- 
suages and all his stock-in-trade, by way of 
mortgage ; but his household gooaa and debts, 
both of which were very trifling, were not included 
in the assignment. I'he ^3<j0 waa not paid at 
the day, so that the mortgage became absolute. 
It was insisted that this mortgage of the houses, 
being accompanied by an assignment of all the 
bankrupt's stock-in-trade, was ipso faHo an act of 
bankruptcy. Worsley v. I)e Mattos was cited in 
support of that proposition. De Grey, C.J., aaid, 
" The <iuestion here turns upon this, whether the 
deed does not ipso facto create an insolvency in 
the trader. If so, it is clearly an act of bank- 
ruptcy, and void against creditors. And I think 
it creates an insolvency. It is an assignment of 
all his stock-in-trade, without which he can 
carry on no business. It is of all his substance, 
except his household goods and debts which alone 
were insufficient to discharge his incumbrances, 
and, therefore, made him insolvent. And if the 
deed bo in itself an act of bankruptcy, the mort- 
gage of the houses in the same deed is equally void 
and fraudulent." It ia observable that nothingis 
there said of the intent with which the aot — i.e., 
the mortgage — was executed, nor even of the con- 
sideration, the act itself — i.e., the assignment of 
all his stock-in-trade — being ruled to be an act of 
bankruptcy. Devon v. Watts (1 Doug. 87) waa 
decided in the 19th year of Geo. 3, and the ruling 
was that an assignment of a lease of a bankrupt's 
estate (made in contemplation of a bankruptcy) 
to some of the creditors ia an act of bankruptcy. 
It ia in the case of Hassells v. Simpson (fully re- 
ported in the note to Devon v. Watts, from page 
88 to 92) that the law ia fully and explicitly laid 
down, aa already stated. In this latter case the 

l«Magr*^*9« ot* Via {ira^, 0-.J-, in X««« v. S J Unn t^f, ia 

questioned, and objected to, for the counsel in 
argument for the defendant says, " As to the case 
of Law V. SMnner, it was decided on a principle 
which certainly is not law, for the Chief Justice ia 
there made to say, that the question turned npon 
this, * whether the deed did not ipso facto create 
an insolvency in the trader ; that, if so, it was 
clearly an act of bankruptcy.' " Lord Mansfield 
interposes, " You are right ; a man may be in- 
solvent without being a bankrupt, and a man may 
become a bankrupt, and yet be able to pay 253. in 
the pound. The reason why a man becomes a 
bankrupt who conveys away all his property is, 
that ho thereby becomes totally incapable of 
trading." Then, in delivering judgment. Lord 
Mansfield states, "It has been settled over and 
over, that if a trader makes a conveyance of all 
his property, that is instantly an act of bank- 
ruptcy. It is fraudulent; it destroys the capacity 
of trading." Those decisions justify the state- 
ment by Cookburn, C.J.,in the ojise of Woodhou$e 
V. Murray, already referred to, that the law had 
years ago been so laid down. It was long ago 
decided, in Siebert t. Spooner (1 M. & W. 714), 
that an assignment of the whole of the property 
of a trader is an act of bankruptcy without actual 
fraud. I have shown that the same principle was 
determined a century before the case of Hiehert 
V. Spooner, and cannot be disputed now. There- 
fore, upon those authorities, which we are not 
disposed to question or disturb, the verdict mast 
be entered for the plaintiffs, pursuant to the leave 

O'Brien, J., concluded his judgment in these 
terms : In my opinion, it clearly follows from 
those authorities that an assignment of all a 
trader's property would not necessarily, of itself, 
bo an act of bankruptcy, if made in consideration 
not only of an antecedent debt, but also of a sub- 
stantial further advance. It is true that, in such 
a case, although the further advance be of a 
substantial amount, there may be circumstances 
to show that the assignment waa invalid, aa 
having been executed for the purpose of defeating 
or delaying creditors, or for some other purpose 
in contravention of the policy of the bankruptcy 
laws. But, the question as to the intent and 
object of the parties would be for the jury to 
determine. And, in the present case, the only 
question left to the jury as to the object, or 
purpose for which the deeds were executed, appears 
to have been found by them in defendant's favour. 
With respect to the question whether, in this 
case, the further advance of ^£43 was an advance 
of such a substantial part of the value of the 

property as would prevent the assignment from 
being necessarily, and per se, an act of bank- 
ruptcy — it appears upon the evidence that the 
value of the property, assigned by the bill of aale, 
was about £280, that the landlord's claim thereon 
for rent was .£52, leaving about £■£>& as its net 
value. It also appeared that the land comprised 
in the deed of conveyance was subject to a charge 
vested in the Irish Church Commiasioners, to an 
annuity of .£13, and to a mortgage to the National 
Bank ; and it was not shown what was the value 
of the land, or whether it was or was not more 
than sufficient to meet those charges. There was, 
therefore, no evidence that the value of the pro- 
perty assigned amounted to more than abou 
^228 ; so that the sum of .£43 advanced was little 
less than ^675 of the net value. And the question 
is whether, under all the circumstances of the 
case, that advance is to be considered as being 
(to use the words of Willee, J., in Pennell T. 
Reynolds) the advance " of a substantial part of 
the value of the property?" If, in the present 
case, no further advance whatever was made by 
the defendant to Young, in addition to the antece- 
dent debt, then the plaintiffs would be entitled, aa 
matter of law, to have a verdict directed for them, ag 
the deeds included all the property of Young, with 
only a colourable exception. The further advance, 
however, alters the case. The arnount of that 
advance was to be considered by the jury, together 
with the other circumstances of the case, in 
coming to a oouolusion on the question whether 
the deeds were executed for the purpose, or had 
the effect of defeating or delaying Young's credi- 
tors. But, having regard to the finding of the 
jury on the question left to them, the plaintiffs 
would not be entitled to have the verdict directed 
for them, except we should hold, aa matter of law, 
that the small amount of the advance necessarily 
made the execution of those deeds an act of bank- 
ruptcy, independent of any consideration of such 
other circumstances. It may be that, having 
regard to the amount of that advance, and to 
those other circumstances, the jury came to a 
wrong conclusion in finding that the deeds were 
not executed with a view of Young's absconding ; 
and if plaintiffs merely sought to set aside the 
verdict, already obtained, aa being against the 
weight of evidence, there would, in my oiiinion, be 
strong grounds for our doing so, and for our 
sending the case for a new trial. It is, however, a 
very different question whether plaintiffs are 
entitled to have the verdict now entered for them. 
The Question whether, npon the evidence given at 
the trial, the execution of those asslgnmenta con- 
stituted an act of bankruptcy or not, was for the 
consideration of the jury, subject, of course, to the 
principles of law laid down by the judge as to 
what would constitute such an act. "The reserva- 
tion at the trial, giving plaintiffs liberty to have 
the verdict entered for them, contained no provi- 
sion that the court should be at liberty to draw 
inferences of fact from the evidence ; and, there- 
fore (according to the practice in this country), 
we should not, in my opinion, aubstitnte our- 
selvea for a jury, by deciding that the further 
advance of £43 waa ao insufficient in amount 
as necessarily to make the execution of these 
deeds an aot of bankruptcy. Can it be laid 
down by the court, as matter of law, that 
the je43 waa so insufficient in amount as to 
that it could not be relied on in support of the 
deeds f In the case of Ex parte Fisher it appeared 
that the assignment included all the trader's 
property, that the value of such property was 
^718, that the antecedent debt was £QSi, and 
that the amount of the further advance was only 
ilOO — being something less than one seventh of 
the value of the property assigned, and, accord- 
ingly, less in proportion to it than the advance in 
the present case is to the value of Young's 
property. And yet. Lord Justice Mellish states 
(p. W4), " We do not think that we can lay down, 
as matter of law, that the smallness of the amount 
of the advance necessarily makes the bill of sale 
an aot of bankruptcy, but we think it affords 
strong evidence that the principal object of the 
parties in the whole transaction was, not to 
enable the bankrupt to continue his trade, but to 
secure to Mr. Wells the repayment of his past 
advance." And it appears that the court, upon 
the entire evidence in the case, came A prion to 
the conclusion that such was the object of the 
parties in the transaction. That case, and two 
other cases in equity — viz.. Ex parte Foxley 
(L. Eep. 3 Ch. 515) and In re Wood (L. Eep. 7 
Ch. 302) — have been relied on by plaintiffs' 
counsel, as showing that, notwithstanding the 
finding of the jury, we should act upon our own 
opinion of the evidence, and enter a verdict for 
plaintiffs. But judges in equity, exercising the 
functions of jurors as well as of judges, have a 
power of deaUng with and acting on the evidenoe 
before them which courts of common law do not 
possess, except it be given to them by the consent 
of the parties. And it appears to me that, 
according to the opinion of Lord Justice MeUish 
in Ex parte Fisher, the smallnesa of the amount 
of the advance in the present oaao does not 

Jigitized by 




[Nov. U, 1874. 

neceesarily make tho oxeoution of the deeda in 
qnestion on aot of bankruptcy. In the caBO of 
Shrubsolc v. Sussams, already mentioned, in which 
an asBignment of all the trader's property waB 
upheld, the value of the property, or the amount 
of the autecedent debt or further advance 
18 not mentioned, but Erie, C.J., stated that 
it vras a email advenoe. We have, also been 
referred by plaintiff's counsel to some cases 
at law, Bn showing that even courts of law 
might (without regard to the finding of the jury) 
act upon the coneluaions which they themselves 
draw from the evidence, as to Buch assignments 
being acta of bankruptcy or not, and might enter 
the verdict accordingly. But, upon examining 
those cases it will be found that they are no 
authority for our adopting that course in the 
present ca^e. In two of these cases — Leake v. 
Toung (2 E. & B. 955), and Bittlestnnc v. Coot (G 
E. & B. 296) — the power of drawing inferences 
of fact from the evidence was expre-ssly given to 
th6 court by tho reeervations at the trial. In 
Hewton V. Chandler (7 East. 185) the question 
came before the court upon a case stated for their 
opinion. In Woodhoiise v. Murray, and Graham 
T. Chapman (already mentioned) the assignments 
included the entire of the trader's property. In 
the former of those oases there was no further 
advance whatever, as the consideration of the as- 
signment ; and in the latter case it appears, from 
vhat I have already stated, that the decision pro- 
ceeded upon the ground that, in consequence of the 
provision in th<! deed as to the trader's future 
acquired property, there was, in fact, no equiva- 
lent given to the trader for any property, and the 
court considered tho case as if there had been no 
further advance whatever. In those two cases, 
therefore, there was no question as to the suffi- 
ciency of the further advance, and the courts 
were clearly authorised to enter the verdicts they 
did, holding as matter of law that an assign- 
ment of all a trader's property, in consideration 
merely of an antecedent debt, was in itself an act 
of bankruptcy. In Smilh v. Cannon (2 E. & B. 
75) the jury found that the assignment was an act 
of bankruptcy, and the court held that thorc was 
evidence to warrant such finding. In some other 
of the cases cited the verdicts of the jury were 
only set aside, and new trials direoted. But no 
case has been cited which, in my opinion, wonld 
"warrant our entering a verdict forplaintiffa in the 
present case. Defendant's counsel have relied 
upon the decision in Re Qass (Ir. B. 2 Eq. 310, 
2 Ir. L. T. 40). In that case, however, the 
trader's property >va» not iiioladcJ lu the assign- 
ment, and the facts in otherrespects wereessentially 
different from those before us ; but, the observa- 
tions of Lord Justice Christian are in some 
respects applicable to the present case. With 
respect to the general question of an assignment 
by a tradrr being an act of bankruptcy, he etates 
(p. 310), " The question is, in its entirety, one for 
the jury, and it is for them to say whether, under 
all the circumstances, tho effect of the assign- 
ment is to defeat and delay creditors." If the 
jury have in this case come to a wrong conclusion, 
we have the power of setting their verdict aside ; 
but I am of opinion, for the reasons I have stated, 
that the plaintiffs are not entitled to have the 
verdict now entered for them. 

Justices Fitzgerald and Barry delivered similar 


Mr. Thomas Reginald Crawfobd, registrar 
of the Dnblin Exchequer Court, has been adjudi- 
cated bankrupt. His liabilities are ^£32,000. He 
had a salary of ^£800 yearly. 

Thk following motion will be introduced by Mr. 
Charles Ford, for discussion at a meeting of the 
Union Society of London, 1, Adam-street, 
Adelphi, on Tuesday next : — " That barristers- 
at-law should be liable in an action for the negli- 
gent discharge of professional dutiee." 

Welsh Judges. — The late Mr. Commissioner 
Goulburn having gleefully informed Lord Lynd- 
hnrst that ho been appointed a Welsh judge, 
with an understanding, i. e., that if his office were 
abolished he should not be entitled to compensa- 
Bation ; hia Lordship replied : " Then you are tho 
first Welsh judge that I ever heard of that was 
appointed ' with an understanding.' " 

In England there is one lawyer for every 1240 
of the population ; in France, one for every 1970 ; 
in Belgium, one for every 2700 ; and in Prnseia, 
one for every 12,000 only. Another curious fact 
is that in England the number of persons belong- 
ing to each of the different professions is nearly 
the same. Thne there are 34,970 lawyers, 35,483 
clergymen, and 35,995 physicians. In Frnssia, 
on the other hand, there are -4809 physicians to 
only 1302 lawyers. 

The Nkw Town Clerk of Bristol.— At a 
meeting of the Finance Committee of the Bristol 
Corporation on Thursday morning, the office of 
town clerk, vacant by the death of Mr. Dan. 

Burges, was offered to Mr. William Bricc, who 
has acted as city solicitor for many years, and 
that gentleman accepted the position. 

Thb AVinter Circuits of the Judges.— 
The following are the arrangements settled on 
Thursday morning by the six judges appointed 
for holding the Winter Circuits :— Mr. Justice 
Blackburn and Mr. Justice Mellor, Manchester 
and Liverpool, where both civil and criminal 
business will be taken ; Baron Bramwell, Kent, 
Surrey, Sussex, Wilts ; Mr. Justice Brett, 
Chester, Stafford, Worcester ; Baron Cleasby, 
Durham, Newcastle - on - Tyne, Leicester and 
borough ; Mr. Justice Denman, Warwick, York- 
shire, West Biding (Leeds). 

Young advocates wUI be, we imagine, not a 
little amnaed at the observations made by Mr. 
Serjeant Ballantine during tho conduct of a 
charge of perjury preferred by Mr. Pugin against 
Mr. Hodgson, heard before the magistrates of 
Bamsgate, and reported in the London daily 
papers of Thursday last. The learned Serjeant, 
in the course of his address, observed as follows : 
"Now, in dealing with a criminal charge, there 
ought to be brought into the consideration of it 
temper and moderation, but he fancied tho counsel 
for the prosecution had become so ir.oenlated with 
the grievance of Mr. Pugin that he had become a 
kind of photographic representation of him, and 
had never been able to prever.t that representa- 
tion being patent to the court. He himself re- 
membered the time when ho believed every client 
of his to be an immaculate person, and when he 
felt bitter indignation on any one of them being 
sentenced as a rogue and a vngabond. He was 
sorry that those halcyon days had passed away, 
and it might be that his learned friend, impressed 
with similar views, wonld in future years exclaim, 
" God bless my soul, how conld I have believed 
that case at all P " 

Illnebs of De. Kenealt. — Dr. Kenealy was 
to have delivered an address at Loughborough on 
the Tichbome trial, but althons;h ho arrived in 
town from Peterborough in the course of the 
afternoon he was unable to appear. In the course 
of the meeting, which was addressed by Mr. 
Guildford Onslow, a letter was read from Dr. 
Kenealy, regretting his absence. He said—" I 
am lying in bed in the most uttxr exhaustion ; the 
attacks of my enemies, and the enemies of all in- 
dependent thought in England, are slowly killing 
me. Their assassinliko assaults culminated last 
week in their Pittendroigh indictment, and 
in my disbarment by Gray's Inn, leaving 
tnv wttnoux a prt»fr«sKyn or tne means or 
livelihood in advanced years, when I have 
been unable to provide for my family. They 
calculate, with a oold-blooded glee, upon my being 
reduced to poverty, and are but completing that 
ruin which the three judges resolved upon from 
the first when they saw that I wonld not desert 
my client and betray his cause. They had pledged 
themselves to his destruction, and they finish 
their deed of gnilt by compassing my death, 
keeping me in perpetual torment of mind now for 
nearly two years. Yet I would rather be as I now 
am than if I had been raised to the Bench with a 
conscionenesB that I had disgraced it. I hope 
soon to be able to revisit the town, and give my 
personal experience of one of the greate^it crimes 
ever committed in a court of law — the unjust 
conviction of ' Tichborne,' " 

Criminal Law in the City. — At the Mansion 
House, on Saturday last, the retiring Lord Mayor, 
Sir Andrew Lusk, M.P., on taking his seat, said, 
addressing Mr. Grcsham, the Chief Clerk, Mr. 
Gore, the Assistant Clerk, and the other officers 
of .the court, as that was the last time he should 
appear there aa the head of that tribunal, ho 
might be permitted to thank them all for the 
nniform courtesy and attention they had invari- 
ably shown him during his year of office, and, he 
believed, to all persons who had occasion to come 
to that Justice room for the transaction of busi- 
ness, and also for the ability and judgment they 
had manifested during the hearing of the various 
cases which had come before them for investiga- 
tion. That court had long been remarkable for 
the high legal attainments of its officers, and he was 
proud to think that it had not fallen away during 
tho last twelve months. He conld not, he was 
sorry to fay, congratulate the public on any re- 
duction in the amount of crime. Indeed, as far aa he 
could discover, there had been a slight increase in 
the number of persons sent for trial as compared 
with last year. In 1872-3 tho persons committed 
from that court for indictableoffences were 88 males 
and 1 female ; and iu 1873 4 for such offences 122 
males and 6 females. But the number of cases of 
I vulgar crime, as he might call it, such as picking 
j pockets and other street offences, had materially 
' diminished. That might, perhaps, be attributable 
' to the action of the School Board in rescuing large 
j numbers of young people from the ttrects, but 
1 that, of course, he could not say. There was, 
I however, he was sorry to say, an increase in 
crimes by persons of education — such as embezzle- 
I ments, forgeries j and larcenies by servants, also 
I of cases against fraudulent debtors and of con- 

spiracies to defraud. In the Mansion House dis- 
trict the number of cases dealt with summarily 
was much lesa than last year, and this was especi- 
ally remarkable in cases of drunkenness, which 
were 24 per cent, less than in 1873, aiid the same 
might be said of cases of assaults. To the Prese 
he tendered his thanks for the fair and accurate 
reports from time to time of the proceeding! 
there. Punishmi nt would be of little use aa a 
preventive measure were it unknown to th» 
public, and the Press, therefore, discharged a 
useful public function to the administration of 
justice in that respect. Further, he was afraid 
that the many cases connected with commercial 
and other companies which he had noticed 
during his tenure of otfice did not sny much 
for the morality of the times in which they 
lived. Mr. Gresham, the Chief Clerk, addressing 
the Lord Mayor, said, on behalf of himself, of hi* 
worthy colleague, Mr. Gore, and thp ri st of tba 
officers who were associated with him in the ad* 
ministratioi) of justice in that court, he begged to 
tender their best thanks to his Lordship forth* 
very kind observations he had made rfspecting 
them, and if Sir Andrew had witnessed iu them a 
desire on their part to discharge the duties 
intrusted to them in carrying on the business at 
the court, they, on the other hand, were deeply 
indebted to hia Lordship for the urbane and 
courteous manner in which he had uniformly 
treated them on all occasions duriig his year of 
office. As to the question of crime, he was but* 
the public would be well satisfied with the manner 
in which he had invariably administered justio* 
there during his year of office, holding, aa he 
always had, the scales of justice with an impartill 
hand, and that the manner in which justice had 
been administered there would redound to the 
credit of the city of London. Mr. Beard, eolioitoTi 
one of the under-sheriffs in the past mayoralty^. 
expressed the pleasure ho had, on the part of tM 
profession of which ho was a member, in indorsing 
the remarks of the Chief Clerk, adding his own 
personal appreciation of Sir Andrew 'b character, 
and said he hoped he would long live to enjoy his 
well earned reputation and the honour conferred 
upon him by his Sovereign. Sir Andrew then left 
the court. 

The Religion of Orphan Children.— I* 
the Queen's Bench in Ireland, on the 7th inst., 
the case of Ciillinan Minors, which is a disput* 
about the religion in which two orphan children 
are to be brought up, was the subject of a long 
and apin^t^t^Ml ««tti»ovomj-. IhG custody of ttr* 
chilflfen is claimed by their mother, who is a 
Protectant, and disputed by their paternal uncle 
and grandmother, who were appointed guardian* 
under a will directing that they should bo 
brought up Roman Catholics. Mr. Justice Fit*- 
gerald made an order directing that tho mother 
should be allowed to retain upon certain cona- 
tions the custody of the boy, who is only fonr 
years old, but that the other child, a girl seres 
years old, should be given up to their testamen- 
tary guardians. The order was not obeyed, and 
an order for attachment was applied for and 
granted upon affidavits showing the efforts which 
had been made to serve the writ npon Mrs. Cul- 
linan, and alleging the belief of the deponent* 
that the child was with the mother at the sovend 
places where inquiries were made for her in 
Kingstown, Rathmincs, and Arklow. After the 
issue of tho attachment service of the writ having 
been held to be pood, on account of the affidavits, 
Mrs. Cullinan voluntarily surrendered, and entered 
into recognizances to appear and abide tho order 
of the C(urt npon her appeal from the decision of 
Fitzgerald, J. Her counsel (Murphy, Q.C.) read 
affidavits made by her brother. Captain Garret, 
Mrs. Garret, and servants in the house where tit 
was stated to have been, positively denying that 
the child was with her there, and that being the 
ground upon which the attachment was issnsd 
the court was asked to eet it aside. AnH' 
strong, Serjt., resisted the motion, and contended 
that Fitzgerald, J., having plenary power to m»k» 
the order, it could not be set aside by a court rf 
co-ordinate jurisdiction. The Lord Chief Justii 
observed that there had been several ca-ies of tl . 
same kind before not only the Queen's Beneli» 
but the late Lord Chief Baron, and the conne 
which had always been adopted was to direct SD 
issue. He did not understand why a judge rf 
that court should "whisk about" for reasons to 
Bet aside the Bottled practice of the courts. Judge 
Fitzgerald resented the remark, and said that he 
had given the best construction to the case npoB 
the affidavits, and made the ruling which in iiis 

i'udgment the interests of justice required. He 
lad not " whisked abont " for any reasons to re- 
verse the practice. Barry, J., threw oil on the 
troubled waters by suggesting that, although the 
matter was a case where it sought to deprive her 
of the custody of her children, the mother bad not 
a strict legal right to have an issue tried, yet she 
ought to have the same privilege conceded to her 
as to an heir-at-law, and that in this ca?o th«W 
should bo an issue to try tho validity of the will. 
' It was then decided that a further writ of halM*- 

id I 

Jigitized by 


Nov. 14, 1874.) 



tn*s shoald be iHaed, and that Mra. CaUinan 
>iild attend on the following Wednesday with 
ohild, when an iasne would be diteoted to try 




2tTEaTiON8 1 to 5 inolauTe. 



f. "Where an action is brought npon • writ ape- 
lly indorsed to recover XlOO, with interest, and 
kwe«n the issning of the writ and jadgment the 
fendant pays .£50, for what amount should 
If^mont be signed ? 

I. When seveial actions are brought against 
Ferent nndertniters npon the same poUoy of 
mranoe, what oonrse should be taken by the 
f endants with a view to save oosts F 

3. State the principal requisites of an affidavit 
be used tn any action or civil proceeding. 
). W^hat ia the differenoe between a proceeding 
ing nail and irregular ? And give an instance 

LO. Within what time must application be made 
aet aside a proceeding or pleading on the 
onnd of irregalarity t 

II. When jadgment has been suffered by .de- 
alt, in what cases may the amount to be re- 
vered thereupon be ascertained without a writ 
: inquiry, and how ? 

12. A plaintiff recovers jadgment in an action 
r a debt : by what proceeding can money doe 
om a third party to the defendant be made 
'ailable to satisfy the jadgment debt P 

13. Hex is a plaintiff's right to costs affected 
iien theamount due being originally above j£20, ia 
dnoed below .£20, either by payment or set-off P 

14. In an action in the County Conrt, where the 
)bt or damage claimed does not exceed £iO. 
hat oostn is the attorney entiUed to receive from 
La client f 

15. In what respect does a defendant in replevin 
iffer from a defendant in any other action ? 

16. Define the right of distress, the right of lien, 
nd the right of stoppage in transitu. 

17. Is tbo rx|^i of lien of. ^n. attorofiy affected 
Y his taking security for his costs, or By the 
tatnte of Limitations ? 

18. State the common law liabilit;^ of infants 
a contracts made by them, and how it has been 
scently limited by statute. 

19. One man makes a settlement of household 
imiture previous to, and in consideration of his 
larriage ; another makes a like settlement after 
is marriage. Do either, and which of these, 
squire to be registered as a bill of sale P 

20. How far do the covenants in a lease bind 
to lesaae holding over after the expiration of the 

ni. — coirviTANCiNa. 

21. Where the conditions under which an estate 
I sold preclude the purchaser from objecting to 
lie titie prior to the date of a particular docn- 
lent, but the pnrohaeer in fact ascertains that 
lie prior title ia defective, can the vendor insist 
n the completion of the purchase ? 

22. If you were instructed by a client to prepare 
contract for the sale of a leasehold property, 

'hat general stipulations relative to title or evi- 

enoe of title would you insert P 

23. On an open contract for sale and purchase 
t enf ranchie*^ oopyholds, is a purchaser entitled 
go into the title of the lord who granted the 
nnanchisement ; and ia there any, and if ao 
■hat, difference in this respect between lands 
nfrandhised under the Copyhold Acts and other 

24. State, in chronological order, what are the 
ISerent assurances by which freehold lands were 
ormerly and are now conveyed. 

25. What are a husband's rights, if aay. over 
lis wife's Imsehold property ; and what, if any, 
lower of dispoaiaon has he over the same P 

26. A., wiihoac eigning any document, borrowa 
iSom of money from B., and leaves with him the 
itle deeds of an estate for the purpose of having 
. mortgage of the property prepared for securing 
he advance. A. afterwards refuaeatoaxecute the 
aortgage. Has B. any, and wbaL right over the 
and P and if so, what course ought he to adopt 
o enforce it P 

27. After foreclosure, can a mortgagee ever, and 
riien, sue on the covenant for payment of the 
lortgage money contained in the mortgage deed, 
■adwhat will lie the effect of hia doing ao or at- 

28. A Bottgagee in fee allows the mortgagor to 
*Bsin in possession for more than twenty years, 
ad receives no interest or acknowledgment from 
um : has be any, and what, right against the 
■ortgsgor, or igainat the Und f 

^. What vaUdity, if any, haa an nsiegutered 

bill of sale of chattels where the grantor remains 
in possession of the chattels ? 

30. In a marriage settlement of personal estate 
a life interest is given to the husband with a gift 
over in case he shall become bankrupt. In what 
cases is this gift over valid, and in what caaea 
invalid P 

31. If ^ou were oonoemed for a gentleman on 
hia marriage iritb a lady, under age, in whoae 
property it ia propoaed to give your client an 
interest, what coarra would you adopt to secure to 
him the benefit of the interest agreed npon P 

32. In what case will a voluntary settlement be 
void as against the creditors of the settlor P And 
is there any and what difference in this respect 
between the case of a trader and a non- trader P 

33. A. effects a policy of awnrance on hia life 
for XIO.OOO, and immediately setties it in favour 
of hia wife and children, bnt enters into no cove- 
nant for payment of the future premiums. How 
would you stamp the settlement r 

31. A testator by his will gives all his " land " 
to his son John. He dies possesaed of freehold, 
copyhold, and leasehold properties. Which of 
there will pass to the son John, and why P 

35. State the various ways in which a will may 
be revoked. 

rv.— Prkuminaet. 

Questions 36 to 40. 


41. Give some of the leading principles by which 
Courts of Equity are governed in granting or 
refusing relief by speoiBo performance, and what 
other relief can be given where the court does not 
think riitht to compel specific performance. 

42. What investments are inoladed by the term* 
" Government or Beal Securities p" 

43. What ia the differenoe between a demnrrer 
and a plea, and an anawerP State shortly the 
effect of each. 

4i. What is an injunction P State generally the 
caaea in which it is granted, and how long does it 
remain in force. 

45. If A. lend money to B. on security of an 
equitable mortgage, and of the jrarsonal guaranty 
of C„ what is the position of C. if A. oompeia him 
to pay P 

4t>. A testator declares that his real and per- 
sonal estate shall be subject to his debts and 
legacies. Is a purchaser of leaseholds from the 
executor b jund to see that the debts and legacies 
are paid P 

4T. rt t trust esmianaa oevoTrea on an imant 
or lunatic, are there any means by which it can be 
cold and conveyed to a purchaser t 

43. In the administration of aninaolvent eatate, 
what are the rights of the specialty and simple 
contract creditors respectively P Give the reason 
for your answer. 

40. A. sells shares to B. ; B. does not pay tlie 
calls, and A. ia sued for them. Is there any and 
what difference in the relief to which A. is entitled 
at law and in equity P 

50. Give some instances of the differenoe 
between a legal and equitable estate. 

51. What IS the nature of the remedy to which 
the creditor of a joint stock company is entitled ? 

52. What is the difference between a charging 
order and a stop order ? 

53. How is the second mortgagee to enforce hia 
aecuritv P 

54. What are the different remediea to which 
the creditor of a deceased person is entitled, and 
under what circu m sta n c e should eaoh be resorted 

55. State some of the instances in which a court 
of equity will restrain ejectment at Common Law p 


56. What are the general objects of the bank- 
rupt laws P 

57. Who may petition for an adjndioation of 
bankruptcy ? 

58. What acta or defaults conatitate aet* of 

SO. Within what time must an act of baok> 
ruptcy have been committed to anpport an adju- 
dieatioD in bankmptcy ? 

60. What evidence ia required by the ooort 
before it will grant a debtor'a aummona t 

61. From what time doea the bankruptcy of a 
debtor commence P 

62. What property of the baakrapt doea not 
vest in the trustee i 

63. Define an "ordinary," a "apeeial," and an 
"extraordinary" resolution ot creditors under 
" The Bankruptcy Act 1869 ?" 

64. For what amount of rent can a diatress 
levied upon the goods of the bankrnpt, after the 
commencement of the bankruptcy, be made avail- 
able by the landlord, and what remedy has he for 
the balance due to him P 

65. When ia a bankrupt entitled to an order o( 

66. Alter what period can a debt provable 
nnder the bankruptcy be enforced againat the 
property of a banbupt who haa not obtained hia 

67. When ia the trustee in bankruptcy entitled ' 
to the proceeds of the sale of goods seised and 
sold by the aheriff under an execution before the 
presentation of the petition of bankruptcy t 

68. What must be proved to establiah, againafc 
the trustee in banlarnptoy, a voluntary settle- 
ment made after 1st Jan. 1870 by a trader who 
has since become bankrupt ? 

69. Explain how a debtor, unable to meet Us 
engagements, may arrange with hia oreditora 
without being made a bankrupt P 

70. When is a debtor, whoae affairs are andez 
liquidation, entiUed to his discharge P 

Tn. — csnnNAi, i,aw, and pbocsbdinos 


71. If an indictment allege money to have been 
obtained on false pretences, is it or is it not 
necessary that the indictment should specify the 
false pretences ? 

72. Define "burglary," and state to what 
puniahment a person convicted thereof is liable. 

73. By what name would yon define the crime o( 
a person stealing any goods from an^ vessel ia 
any port or dock P and what ia the puniahment for 
auch crime P 

74. Of what crime ia a tenant of a house guilty, 
who shall unlawfully and maliciously pull down 
such house, or any iiart thereof, or unlawfully or 
maliciously sever bom the freehold any fixture 
therein P 

75. Suppose a person without lawful anthority 
or excuse to aoxnowledge in the name of any 
other person any deed before any court, judge ot 
other person lawfully antherised in that beoalf, 
of what crime would such person be gnilty ? 

76. Will any, and if so what punishment or 
forfeiture be incurred by any person who shall 
kill aoother by misfortune, or in his own defenoe, 
or in any other manner without felony P 

77. State the differonce between an "aggra- 
vated aaeanlt " and a " common assault." 

78. On the trial of e person tendering, uttering, 
or putting off counterfeit coin, is it necessary to 
prove the same to be counterfeit by the evidence 
of any moneyer or other officer of Her Majesty's 
Mint, or ia it sufficient to prove the same to be 
oonnterfeit by Uie evidence of any other credible 

79. May anyone whatsoever apprehend any per. 
son who shaU be found tendering counterfeit 

80. Assuming that the case of counterfeiting 
eoin cannot be proved directiy by positive erl- 
Oenoe, liy wfaoi Wtad of «ixcuina4Miiwl eridetioe 
may tbe crime be proved P 

81. If apersondefaoeanyof tbeQueeu'sourrent 
gold, silver, or capper coin by stamping thereon 
any names or words, and tbe coin be not thereby 
diminished or lightened, will such person be guil^ 
of any, and if so what offence ? 

82. If a person attempt by force to rescue or 
set at liberty any one convicted of murder going 
to execution or during execution, of what crime 
will such person be guilty, and to what puniah- 
ment will be be liable P 

83. Suppose a constable, by colour of his office, 
to extort, receive, or take from A. B. a sum of 
money as and for a fee due to him (the constable) 
when no fee was then due to him from A. B., or 
if he should extort a greater fee than was then 
legally due, to what punishment would auch ooa. 
atable be liable on conviction P 

84. If A. B. send a letter through the post Co 
C. D., ehaUeoging C. D. to fight a duel, and there 
be evidence that the letter was sent by post, bnt 
not evidence that it reached C. D., could A. B. be 
convicted on snch evidence of an offence, and, if 
ao, what may be hia punishment ? 

85. Is or ia not cheating in playing with cards 
puaiahable aa obtaining money by false pie- 


Tbe Norwich Law Students' Society, a report of 
whoee meeting on Tuesday last will be found in 
aoother column, waa fortenate to have in the 
chair on the occasion tbe ftesident of the Society, 
Mr. E. F^ld, solicitor of Norwich, who is a 
member of the Council of the Incorporated Law 
Society, and one of the Examiners of the Society. 
We bofie that his instructive obeervationa aa to 
bow best to prepare for the examinationa are im- 
presaed on tne minda of thoee whom tli«yiDOst 


Kara.— Ttaia DeputaMot of the Liw Tnra bsinf open to 
fvM dlwnuaioQ on mil prof«mu>ii»l topic*. u.e h'iiUjT U not 

Basbistzbs and Solicitobs. — As a member 
of the" mato inglorious" branch of the Profes. 
aion I cordially approve much of the article from 
a barrister's point of view Modem l eglslajfam , 
and still more modem latitude in praa* " " 
caused, and are calculated still m^ 
the impingement of one btaneh ' 
andthemntoal tsvasioa of de^ 

Digitized by 




[Nov. 14, 1874. 

between the two. I agree that inouraion on the 
one side must provoku retaliation on the other ; 
and that the inevitable tendency towards com- 
plete fnsicn should not bo wielded or guided to 
the prejudice of either. The demarcation between 
the cautious adviser and the brilliant advocate is 
one which must ever exist. It ia founded upon 
innate differences of constitution and tempera- 
ment, and fashioned by the exigencies of daily 
practice. If instead of the antiquated monopoly 
and ariificial modes of distinction now in vogue a 
principlo of natural selection, or free choice, were 
estftblisfaed, all complaint would be removed by 
enabling each man to find his own proper level, 
selecting that branch which best suits him. To 
accomplish this, the gulf which now dividesthetwo 
branches must be bridged over — a man qualified 
as a barriater must be enabled at hia own option to 
elect to practise as a solicitor, and a solicitor of 
certain standing, or, in deference to the apii'it of 
the age, with an examination standard super- 
added, must be allowed at once to proceed to the 
Bar. Perhaps the demolition of the barriers 
which now proscribe individuals from following 
the bent of their disposition would obviate all 
oonfiict, and would tend to preserve what is left 
of the existing rules of etiquette. At least the 
course anggeated would remove the grave scandal 
of barristers instructing one another, as in the 
Alabama arbitration and the Tichbome prosecu- 
tion, and the daily exhibition of Treasury prose- 
cutions without the intervention of an attorney, 
or, what is still worse, on the initiative of other 
barristers, assisted by unauthorised clerks pos- 
Besaing neither qualification. Under such a sys- 
tem there would be no hostile rivalry, but whole- 
some emulation, and the two branches would 
become, as they are designed to be, natural and 
convenient allies. Lex Talionis. 

Managing Clerks. — As one of that unfor- 
tnnato body called " Managing Clerks," I am 
intereated in the correspondence in your columns 
as to their remuneration. It is quite true 
that, as a rule, the salaries offered to this 
claaa are utterly inadequate, looking to the fact 
that they have to pay a heavy premium and 
undergo a long, expensive, and arduous course of 
Btudy before thoy are qualified to manage a 
business The competition for clerkships is so great 
that solicitors oan almost exact their own terms. 
That such is the case will appear from a perusal 
of the advertisements which appear in your 
columns. I certainly think it would be a good 
thing if mnnaeins clerks were to oombina to 
remedy this state of things, and it a society were 
formed for this purpose it might usefully combine 
that of facilitating the formation of partnerships 
by keeping a register of applicants, and in other 
Traya. A London Manaqinq Clebk. 

Stamps on Building Society Moktgaoes. 
— In my letter which you print to-day under the 
heading " Correspondence of the Profession," 
the words in parenthesis ("both alike being 
according to sect. 7, a society under this Act") 
should be, '' both alike being according to sect. 
8," &c. The error is my own. 


purchase or mortgage money is of large amount, 
and the trouble and labour involved is inaignifi- 
cant, and ignoring the scale in those transactions 
in which its adoption would not afford more than 
adequate remuneration. Moreover, clients who 
are charged according to the scale are apologeti- 
cally and. I must say, jesuitioally informed by 
these solicitors that they have "adopted" the 
" scale." This ia, of course, one of those half- 
trutha which are morally more heinous than a lie. 
I feel sure that this unworthy practice will bo 
reprobated by all your readers who are jealous of 
the honour of the i?rofeasion. I have not a syllable 
of complaint to utter against the " scale," pro- 
vided it be adopted indiscriminately, but to use it 
in isolated transactions where it yields perhaps 
200 per cent, more than the ordinary charges ia, in 
my opinion, a practice deserving of unstinted 
condemnation, and conclusively shows that if a 
scale of charges is to be used at all, it should bo, 
in the interests of all parties, made compulsory. 

Law Students' Societies.— I am somewhat 
surprised that the important town of Bradford 
is not among those towns which can boaat of their 
law students' aocietiea ; societies which, if con- 
ducted properly, are admitted by the entire Pro- 
fession, I believe, to be great aids to articled 
clerks in the acquirement of a knowledge of the 
law. Surely Bradford, with upwards of fifty solioi- 
tora and a good number of articled clerks, ahould 
be well able to support one of these aocietiea, 
which I believe would bo a very valuable acquisi- 
tion. The feeling of the articled clerks might 
easily be ascertained were a general meeting to be 
convened and held at some convenient time and 
place to consider the matter. If any of your 
Bradford readers be desirous to render themselves 
instrumental in the formation of one of these 
societies, I shall be very glad to place myself in 
communication with them if desired, and for this 
purpose a letter addressed to me as below, in care 
of the editor of the Law Times (by kind permis- 
sion), shall hare the immediate attention of 

A JuNiOH Aktioled Cleek. 

13. GExrnAL HinnwiY Act— RiTionE Te.iurje.— 
lu the 62nd sectioQ of this Act it is provided that in 
case the jastices decided that the said hit^hwaj shall 
hecome a parish highway, .^c, they ehall bj au order 
under their hauds fix the proportion of the expenses of 
repairing the 8.iid hiehwiiy to bo annually paid by aqch 
body politic, itc., to the surveyor of the said parish, or 
a lump sum to be paid in discharge of repairs. The 
question ie, does the whole of the expense of repairtag 
the road and keeping it iu repair hereafter fjll upon tho 
person liable to repair the said highway by payment ot 
an annual or lump sum to tho surveyor, or must the 
pariah contribute its qiiota^ or how otherwise ? 

Via Seou. 

14. Distress for Rent, — A,, by hia baiUII B., dis- 
trained on goods of C, for rent, £530, the whole of 
which was pnid the following morning. In the mean 
time B. made an inventory and delivered a copy to C. 
about BJx folios in length. B. demanded Is. per £1 on 
i:530— ,£2fi 10a. Will one of your many readers inform me 
whether he could legally do so, and on what authority ? 
Tlie bailitf refused to settle unless he was paid the 
whole £20 10s., and it ffas paid under protest, 


1.5, Weekly Sekv.m«T3.— Can a weekly labourer be 
considered ds such if his master deducts any part of his 
weekly wages for wet days, or part of such 'lays ? Can 
a farmer consider a labourer to be a weekly servant it 
he deducts from his weekly wages a day or part of day 
that turns out too wet to work on the land ? 


CuKious Decision. — A very curious decision 
it appears to mo was made by the County Court 
Judge at Wimborno very recently, in the case 
of Savcrstock v. Cox (reported elsewhere). He 
decided that when a person was driving on his 
right or proper siiie, and happened to soe a vehicle 
coming towards him on the same side, and there- 
fore on tho other party's wrong side, it was the 
duty of the person who was on the right side to 
drive to the wrong side in order to avoid a 
collision, and that ho would be liable for damoges 
if ho didn't. This does appear to me a moat 
monstrous decision, upsetting all one's notions of 
the rules of the road, and even of contributive 
negligence, 'The parties are not in a position to 
have a case, and I should like to have your views 
on the subject in tho next isBue of the Law 
Times. Lex. 

Solicitors' Eemunebation.— Ton are always 
commondably ready to expose in your columna 
the proceedings of individuals who are illegiti- 
mately trcncliing upon tho province of, or in any 
■way unfairly affecting the interests of solicitors, 
and you are always equally ready to " gibbet " 
those solicitors who, by infringing the wholesome 
rules of professional etiquette, or in any other 
respect acting in derogation of the Profeaaion, 
bring nndeserved discredit on the general body of 
praotitionera, and I now appeal to this readiness 
to expose professional abuses to be allowed to lay 
before your readers the discreditable practice, 
which 1 know from personal knowledge to bo 
eystcmatieally pursued by at least one firm 
of country aolicitora who plume themaelyea on 
their respectability and standing, of adopting the 
scale of charges some time ainco iasned by the 
Incorporated Law Society, in all oases whore the 


NoncB.— "Wo must remind our correspondent* that this 

be exL'luded which go beycuil our limits. 
N.B.— Nono are iuserted unless the nnme and address of the 
writers aro Bent, not ncceaBurlly lor yubUcation, but an a 
goaruitee for Oona Jlde$, 


7. Deed — Acknowledgement. — A testator devised 
his real estate to two trueteea upon trust to sell the 
same, and divide tho i>roceeda equally amODgat his chil- 
dren—directing that his daughters' shares should be for 
their separate use, and that their rccoi pts alone, whether 
covert or aolc, should l>e suUicieut for the aaoje. One of 
the trustees having since purchased part of the trust 
property i which is but smallj, the cfituw qw iruii h-^ve 
been mode convoyiug and concurring parties in his 
conveyance. Will it be necessary for those who are 
married womea to acknowledge tne deed ? Keferences 
to authorities will oblige. L- T. 

8. Stamps on Mortoaoes to Bcilding Societies.— 
Does the 4l8t Rectiou of c. 42 of 37 & ^8 Vict, make 
mortgages to building societies under ieoOO liable to 
stamp duty ? , 

9. Books fobFinal Examination.— Would you please 

five me au idea of what books would be best to study 
or tho final oxamitiatlon. 1 saw the questiou had been 
asked in the Law Times a few weeks back, but I have 
not yet Been any answer. O. S. W, 

10. Building Societt MonTGAOES.— At the present 
lime Buildiug Society Mortgages for sums under 4;S00, 
are, as you are aware, exempt from stamp duty. Cau 
you or any of your readers inform me whether under 37 
& 38 Vict. c. 42, the above exemption will extend to 
future mortg^^feB to existing Societies who do not regis- 
ter under the said Act, Am Aeticleu Clerk. 

11. Sale of Copthold. — A. is tenant in fee on the 
rolls of a manor, and has agreed to sell hia copyhold to 
B. B. proposes take a eurrender from A. " to tho use 
of B., his heirs, aud aasigus." B. does not wish to bo 
admitted, but to leave A. tenant on the rolls. In the 
event of a future sale by B. to C. can the lord com- 
pel B. to be admitted on A.'s surrender aboveuamed, 
before a surrender cau be made toC? or can the lord be 
compelled to admit C. without B.'s admittance aud sur- 
render to the use of C. ? B. wishes to avoid payment of 
a heavy tine which, would be payable on his owu admit- 
tance. Copyhold. 

12. Decision Wanted.— In the Law Times of June 6, 
1868, p. 100, ia an article headed" Kabbit Law " stating 
that tho Court of Queen's Bench has just decided a 
very important case on the subject, ana hi-ld that no 
action would lie for damnge done to teuauf a crop by 
rabbits where they were reserved in the lease. We are 
unable to find any report of this decision either in the 
Law Times Reports or elsewhere. Can you inform us 
where such report may be found, as we have^occasion to 
refer to the cose, or the names of the solicitors con- 
cerned. W. E. and H. A. G. 

(Q. 2.) Eight TO Rents. — The rents and profits of the 
house until sale, from the time oF testator's death, and 
the interest on the purchase money till payment go to 
the six i)er8on8 beneficially intereated an i not to the 
reaiiuory legatee : (Bunin^^lon v. Trtstraiu, C Vea. 345). 

J. Ua 

{Q. 3.) Will. — The esecators had a discretioii 
whether payment should be made at once or by inatal- 
ments. but not a discretion to pay or not as they shoald 
think fit. Paymeut in one way or another should haie 
been made or begun long ago, and, by refusing to exer- 
cise their judgment iu favour of the legatee, the eiecn- 
tors frustrate the intention of the testatrix and are 
guilty of a breach of trust. Tho le^ratee cau recorerhis 
legacy by a suit in equity, perhaps, in this oasp, in a 
county court, J. M» 

(Q. e.) DisTRinuTioN OP Assets.- Executors may, if 
they like, distribute an estate within the year, if it U 
clear that there is enough t-o satisfy all claims, and 
under such circumstances there is no objection to such 
a course. There may even he cases when to do(« 
distribution for twelve months would be an abase ot 
the executor's power. See Lord Hedesdale in Pianon 
V. Fearficm, 1 Scbo. & Lefr, 12. J. M. 


The opening mceing of tho aeasion of the Social 
Science Association will be held on Monday oven- 
ing next, the IGth inst., at their roonia in Adam- 
street, Strand, when a paper by Thomaa Har«, 
Esq,, " On the Construction of a Municipality for 
the Metropolis " will be read aud diacuased, Tho 
chair will be taken at eight o'clock by Robert 
Kawlinson, Esq., C,B, 

TuE tenth annual meeting of thia aooiety wu 
held on Wednesday evening, at the Clement's-iim 
Hall, when tho chair was token by Profesjor 
Leone Levi, P,S,S, Tliere waa a fair attendanoo 
of the members. The Chairman, in the course of 
his opening addreaa, observed tliat much had of 
late been said of a now School of Law for both 
branches of the legal profession, Strennou 
oiforta had been made to induce the Inns of Court 
to throw aside their apathy and to use their rich 
fouudations for the promotion of legal education. 
The establishment oC a School ot Law WM i 
favourite idea of Lord Brougham, and was now 
the pet acheme of Lord Solborne, Professor I^ri 
ventured to say that our universities and col- 
leges had abundant means at their disposal to 
provide tho law studies if fully alive to the 
necessity of giving legal education, not only 
elementary but toohnioal, to all the liberal p'ofei- 
sions ; and that, in hia opinion, any encourage- 
ment which it was now in the power of the InM 
of Court or tho Incorporated Law Society to 
render should be in way of prizes and Bchol»^ 
ships to the students in the Universities aM 
Colleges. What could the proposed School ra 
Law do more than has already been done ? Could 
it impoae actual legal pra <tioe in the same manner 
as the College of Physicians can impose hos- 
pital practice ? A school of law could only ao 
more imperfectly what was already demo and what 
could be more effectually done in the Universitiei 
of Oxford and Cambridge, in King's and Univer- 
sity Colleges in London, Suggesting to the meet- 
ing several important questions for their future 
consideration, Professor Levi said :— " A propow 
had been made of an International Code of lA** 
to define with all possible precision the rights anH 
duties of nations and individuals in time of J^ 
and peace. In attempting to draw such a code, 
would it not be necessary to distinguish those 


Jigitized by 


Nov. 14, 1874.] 



principals which obtained general assent from 
those on which no agreement existed ? And how 
■faonld we deal with the latter portion of such 
principles when wo know the different views 
representing the varying policy of States, 
jealoas of one another P The application to 
a code of any propositions of International 
Law was not free from difficulty. Can there 
bo any law without a lepislator, and who is 
the legislator of nations ? Should we aim at more 
than a general assent .of nations to certain pro- 
positions in the shape of a common explanation 
of the declaration respooting all maritime law 
signed at the Congress of Paris in 1856, or should 
we urge the collection of a series of treatise on 
the different questions P And what was the range 
of subjects admissible in this International Code P 
Should private international, or the law of neu- 
tralisation, minority marriage, and contracts be 
added to the law of peace and war ? Had wo 
arrired at the point of preparing a series of In- 
ternational Laws on the rights and duties of the 
State, on the personal and private laws of indi. 
vidnals, on the trade rights of patents, copyright, 
trade marks, and the like ; on crime, extradition, 
oonrta and evidence ? Another question of diffi- 
culty was the suggested Code of International Ar- 
bitration. Just think what kinds of disputes might 
be submitted to such a Code. Would England 
submit to it all questions between herself and Ire- 
land or the colonies ? Would the United States 
hive submitted to it her quarrel with the Southern 
States ? And was the late dispute between France 
1 Qermany capable of being decided by such a 
le ? And who were to be the members of the 
id ? Are they to be diplomatists or jurists P 
I Is the board to be a council in which all 
^nations are to bo admitted, and is each state 
■|e equally represented on the board irre- 
tive of ner size and power P And what 
othority and what power would the board 
I ? If obligatory, what are its sanctions 
i war ? If optional, would it have sufficient 
authority ?" Among other matters, the Professor 
compared the present state of the law in Eng- 
land with the Homan law, and pointed out a great 
luttilarity between them. In conclusion, he gave 
his audience some advice as to their conduct in 
th* piaotioe of their Profession. 

Apopar was then read by Mr.H. T.Kound, B.A., 
on ' :The Soiontifio Study of the Law,"which was 
followed by a discussion, after which Mr. E. J. 
Bakor prupusoa otxI Mr J. S Rntinatnin seconded 
the customary Toto of thanks to the chairman. 


Tbi usual monthly meeting of the board of 
directors of this association was held at the Law 
Institution, London, on Wednesday the 4th Nov., 
Mr. Veley, of Chelmsford, being elected chairman 
of the board for the current year, an<l Mr. Janson, 
of London, deputy chairman. Grants of relief 
were made to widows and families of deceased 
solicitors, amounting in the whole to the sum of 
100 guineas. Sixteen new members were ad- 
mitted to the association, and other general 
bniinesa transacted. 


Arihensnal monthly meeting of the Board of 
IHrectors, held at the h.-iU of the Incorporated 
law Society, Chancery-lane, on Thursday, the 
5th inst., the following being present, viz. : Mr. 
Steward (chairman), and Messrs. Bennett, Hedger, 
Kelly, Lovell, Mastorman, Sidney Smith, Tylee, 
and Boodle (secretary), throe grants of .£10 
each were made to the families of non-members ; 
two new members were admitted, and other 
general business transacted. 

A spiciAL general meeting of the members of this 
society will bo held on Friday, the 20th inst., at 
half-past seven o'clock p.m., at the rooms of the 
oodal Science Association, 1, Adam-streot, 
Adelphi, London, to receive a report from the 
Ptrliamentary Committee, in regard to past and 
proposed legislation in the interests of the Pro- 
letsioo, and for the transaction of other business. 


A PCBLic meeting of the above society will be 
held on Tuesday evening, the 17th inst., at the 
I?", Library, 7(j, Cross-street. Mr. M. Bateson 
"ood, solicitor, has consented to take the chair, at 
seven o'clock precisely. A lecture will be deli- 
^"•^oy K- M. Pankhurst, Esq., barrister-at-Iaw, 
<» Certam difficulties in the study of the law," 
and a short account given by the secretary, of the 
objects, history, and prospects of the society. 
Wther gentlemen are expected to address the 
nesting. AH gentlemen— and, specially, articled 
Clerks and students for the Bar-interested in the 
subject of the lecture, or in the work of the 
•oottj, are cordially invited to attend. 

At the usual weekly meeting of the society, held 
on Tuesday evening last, at the Law Institution, 
the following question was appointed for dis- 
cussion, CCXXXII. jurisprndontial. Ought the 
absolute power of testamentary disposition to be 
restricted so as to disable the parent from entirely 
disinheriting his children P After a long debate 
the question was decided in the negative by a 
large majority, the meeting being very well 

A MEETING of this society was held on Tuesday 
evening last, Mr. W. H. Warlow in the chair, 
when tlie following question was discussed, viz. : 
" That the punishment of flogging should be ex- 
tended to all cases of violent assault." The 
speakers in the affirmative were Messrs. Heath, 
Evett, and G. F. C. Lowe ; in the negative, Messrs. 
Browett, Satton, David and Tyler. The votes on 
being taken were equal, and the casting vote was 
therefore given in favour of the negative, accord- 
ing to the rule generally observed under simihir 

The first general meeting of this society was held 
at the Masonic Hall, Portsmouth, on Monday 
evening last, Mr. Albert Addison, solicitor, in the 
chair, when a discussion took place on the follow- 
ing question : " Is the proposed registry of the 
titles of lands desirable ?" The speakers in the 
affirmative were Messrs. E. S. I'raser and H. 
Wainscot. In the negative, Messrs. G. Whitehall, 
J. F. Eowe, and T. O. Bramsdon. The question 
was under discussion for some considerable time 
and caused great interest. The chairman who 
congratulated the society upon the progress it had 
made in the short time it had been established, 
announced the voting to be in favour of the nega- 
tive by a majority of eight. 

A MEETING of the above society was held at the 
Law Library, on Tuesday evening, the 10th inst., 
when the president E. Field, Esq., occupied the 
chair. Before opening the business of the meet- 
ing the chairman made some useful and practical 
remarks on the best mode of preparing for the ex- 
aminations of the Incorporated Law Society, and 
oth^r matters of interest to articled clerks. The 
subject for discussion, which was as follows — " A 
Quarterly Tenant becomes Bankrupt, or files 
his petition between quarter days, the Trustee 
holds over the next quarter day, What is the 
remedy of the landlord in respect of rent (1) 
From the quarter day to the order of adjudication 
or the filing of the petition ? (2) From the order 
of adjudication or the filing of the petition ?" — 
produced an instructive debate. 



The usual fortnightly meeting of this Society was 

held at the County Court on Monday night, Mr. 

B. Crook in the chair. The question under discus- 
sion was as follows: "A firm of manufacturers 
contracted to supply a firm of merchants with ytiO 
pieces of oloth, ' delivering on April 17th, complete 
SSth May.' The manufacturers made no delivery 
on the 17th April, and the merchants on the fol- 
lowing day rescinded the contract. Were the 
manufacturers bound to commence delivery on 
the 17th April in order to support an action by 
them against the merchants for non-acceptance 
after tenders of the cloth at various dates prior to 
MaySth P {Coddingtony. Palenlogo, L Hep. 2 Ex. 
103.)" Messrs. J. Yeoman and J. R. Haigh sup- 
ported the affirmative, and Messrs. E. F. Brook 
and E. Welch the negative side of the question. 
The meeting being equally divided iu opinion on 
the question, the Chairman gave his casting vote 
in favour of the negative. 

As ordinary meeting of this society was held in 
the Hull Law Library on the 3rd inst-, G. P. 
Spink, Esq., solicitor, being in the chair. The moot 
point for discussion was as follows : " A house 
and premises adjoining a railway, but not touched 
by it, are depreciated in value through vibration, 
noise, and smoke, caused by the running of the 
trains on the railway after it has been com- 
pleted, the premises, however, sustaining no 
structural injury. Is the owner entitled to com- 
pensation from the company ?" Messrs. Taylor 
and Lambert argued in the affirmative, and 
Messrs. Collier and McBride in the negative. 
After some remarks from Messrs. Boden and A. 

C. Wilson, the chairman summed up the argu- 
ments, and put the point to the meeting, when the 
voting was found to be equal. The chairman 
declined to give his casting vote. The usual 
examination was then proceeded with, at the con- 
clusion of which a vote of thanks was given to 
the chairman, and the proceedings terminated. 

This society was formed on the 20th Oct. last 
and the first debate took place on the 4th inst, 
Mr. G. H. Carthew in the chair. The sub- 
ject for discussion was as follows : — B. is an 
infant, equitable tenant for life of some very ex- 
tensive lands, with remainder to his first and 
other sons in tail ; A. is his trustee, and during 
B.'s minority he saves up a sufficient sum out o£ 
the rents of B.'s lands to buy a small estate 
called Black Acre, and he takes the conveyance to 
himself in fee simple, and in his (A.'s) own name, 
in 1848. A is also the beneficial owner of three 
farms called Coombe, White Aero, and Rudge, 
and by his will the 3rd Deo. 1850, he devised Black 
Acre, Coombe, White Acre, and Eudgo, by their 
respective names unto B. (who at A'a death in 
1852 had attained majority) for life, with re- 
mainder to his first and other sons in tail. B. 
continues in receipt of the rents and profits o£ 
these four farms until his death in 1873, and by 
his will of the let Jan. IStiB devised all his 
estates of whatever tenure, unto C-, a stranger, 
his heirs and assigns for ever. C, after B.'s 
death, takes legal proceedings against B.'s eldest 
son to recover Black Acre. la he entitled to 
recover or notP For the affirmative, Messrs. 
Thome and Bundle ; for the negative, Messrs. 
Hawkes and Francis. After a lengthened 
and animated discussion, it was held by tho 
chairman as follows : That on the purchase by A. 
there was a constructive trust as to the fee in 
favour of B., but that B., by electing to take the 
other estates, devised to him by A., confirmed tho 
trusts in the wiil, and thereby only acquired a life 
estate in Black Aero, the remainder being limited 
to his sons in tail ; therefore B.. having no estate 
to devise, C. was barred from any relief. , 


Mr. Thomas Geesham (of the firm of Moaara. 
Gresham and Son, aoUcitors) sou of the High 
Bailitf of Sonthwark, haa been elected joint 
clerk, with his father, to the Oommissionerai 
appointed nnder the Ecctor's Stipend (Saint 
Andrew, Holborn) Act, 4 Geo. 4. Mr. GreahAm, 
senior, has been clerk to tho commiasion for 
upwards of forty years. 

^rofcfisbnal ^artnrrs^ips |!i«fioIbeb. 

GazeHe, Oct. 30. 

Davy. Robert MAxxisa, and davy.Henrv Samuel, ftttomera 

ana solicltora, Rtnirw<x>a and Fordingbrld^jo. Uay d 

Oamtttf J!{ov. 3. 

Fallows and Whitbhead. •oiioltor*, LanoMter^pl. 8t«md 

i ,t *!** ***■ *"** SpMicerWUitehoad). Debu by FmUows. 

^iT"''^^' ^v;.*^** Russell. Mlloltoni, WMtralnntsr-chmbt, 
VloU>rU-«t. WestmlnBtur, and Kliyr wmbim-it. Lundon-bridsa 
IBowlea Puttlsou und WlUUm CumpboU RuhmUJ. Oct. U 


Gazette, Nov, 6. 

To Burreadcr at the Bonkrupta' Court. DaBin^hAll-at. 

Burt, SCaxwell. architect. Queen Victorla-»t Pet Xot 4 

Kf)g. Koohe. Sol. Honton, Onmhiim-bltlK'*. Sur. Nov. W 

To ■urrendsr In the Counlry. 

Fins, JOHX. buUdcr. Lelc»8t«r. Pet. Nov. 4. See. Inarain. 

Sitr. Nov. 13 -■ "• ««*. 

FoREifAK, Jamks, butcher, Norwich Pot. Oct. 22. Rtur Cooke 
Sur. Nov. Ifl 

Oardnee, Ellen Catuebixe, widow. Hbrton, Ilminster. Pet 

Oct. 31. Hcs. Mcyler. Sur. Nov. IU 
jONK>(, Jou.x, jun., dalryuian, Weatbury. Pot. Nor 4, Km. 

MoiwUer. Sur. Nov. 1» ^ ^ ««». 

McKiB, Edward Anous, travelllnfr draper, Torritiftoii. Peu 

Nov. i. Beg. Benoruft. Sur. Nov. 'JO 
PRICE, TnOKAS, late publican. Pontypridd. Pet. Nov 4 Rmz. 

Splcktitt. Sur. Nov. 18 
Still, James. boUder, Chlawlck. pot Oct. 31. Reg. Ruiton. 

Sur. Nov. 31 
SWAX, Edwabd Robert Thomas, hotel keoper. Oreat Tar- 

mouth. Pet. Nov. a. R«e. Walk«r. Sur. Nov. au 
Terry. Thomaa, sen.. buUder. Contorbuiy. Pet. Nov. 3. R«ff. 

Callaway. Sur. Nov. IS ^^ 

WATTS. PHILIP Uexrt, mealouui, Newbury. Pet. Oct. S8. 

Re». Blount, Sur. Nov. 16 J ^^ wtu =». 

Gazttte, Nov. 10. 

To rarrender at the Bnnkrupta' Court, BaalnKhall-Ktroet. 

Harris, William. buUder, Prli)oea»-»t, and lUlthuuiio-mows. 

Ed|pviu-»-rd. Put. Ni>v. s. Re|r, Rocha. Sur. Nov. S4 
Lbhchkau. W.. commltaloa a^ent, Aldffata Hich-at. Pet. Nov. G 
R4^e. Rnoho. Sur. Nov. 96 

Lonsdale. Frederick Edward, no oooapaUon. North-vULui 

Cumdon-iiq. Put. Nov. 0. Rvor. Booha. Sur. Nov. 34 
Thomi'sun. John, oommUsion areni, CuUibert-ak Edirwure-rd 

Pet. Nov. 6. R«ir. Roche. SutTNov. M ^ ^ ^ . 

To nurendar In Uu Coantrr. 
PRICE, WILLIAM LbdwakD, boUdar, Over. Pet. Nor 7 Den 

R«K. Speakman. Sur. Nov. aa ^ 

Oalb. Ubxry STANLEY, auiyeon. ManohMtor. Pot Nov 3 

R««. Kay. Sup. Nov. » * ' 

Siqnibari(nt« hv ^rrangemtnl. 


Oaz«t(«, Nov, 6. 

AMBLER. SAMi'EL,(rTooor. Alton, near LMda. Poi. Oct. 30. Vor. 

17. at three, at offloo of Sol. Oranger, Leeda 
Anurf.w, TiiOMAtt, and RupPLU. Alprkd Johm, enrlneon* 

racton, PcHbody-balldlnc*. Comnmclal-at. Pet. Nov. 3. Nor. 

•X, nt thrcv, at tho Cannon-at hotel. Cannon-<t. Sola. Slmpaoa 

and Cullinirford, Qroooohuroh-at 
Beaumont, Joiix Willllm, ogont. Cbeaterfleld. PeL Nov. z. 

N<jv. •::>. lit twelve, at the Star hotel. Cheatarfleld. ftol. Kaabr 
Blakemax, John, grooor, BvMham. Pel. Nov. 5. ttor. in, at 

twelve, Ht office of Sobi. Now, Pranca, and Garrard, Evaaham 
B')LTON, AT<'nt'<ov. cntlQR-houae keeper, NewoasU*. Pat.Kar.3, 

Nov. ir«. at twu. wl tSula, J. Q. and J. K. Jool, Newoaatle 
Brown, Jameh HALL.veterinatyaurgeon.Leirtoaatoiie. TvLVar, 

■I. Nov. Id, nt ten, itt the Victoria tarem, lforpeth>rd. Betim*t- 

ifroca. 8oL Losf, L*&a£k>wn-l«r, Qrora-rd, Vlctorl»-park 


Digitized by VjO< 



[Nov. 14, 1874. 


Call, William, tobsioponlsfc, Ramsgate. Pet. Oct, 31. Nov, IR, 

at two, at the UuilcUiuli colTtie-house, (rresbam-st. Sols. Soukoy 

and Co., RaniKffiiLe 
Campbell, Jdhn, St. Helens. Pet. Not. 3. Dec. 1. ftt ton, at 

the Publlc-hiill, UardRhaw-st, St. Helen's. Sol- Grace, Llverjjool, 

and St. Holen'i) 
Cbateb, William, shoe manufacturer, Ketterinjr. Pet. Kov. 4. 

Nov, 20, at eleven, at ottlce at Sol. Preodv, Kettering 
COLLEY. William ErtWARD, farmer. Howley. Pet. Sov, 2. Nov. 

ao, at tn-tilve, ut ullice oi' &oU. Kiiowle.i and Uichelmore, Welling- 
CouaiONS. BENJAMtv. chinft dealnr, Wakefield. Pet. Oct. 31. 

Nov. 1», ftt eleven, atofflc« of Sul. Burrell, Wokefleld 
OBACKNKLL. Jb'imDeniCK UharlE^, Krooer, Union-i;t, Boroasrh. 

Pat. Oct. 29. Nov. 18. attwelve, atoiflceof SoL Morris, Stuple- 

inn, Uolbom 
Chockktt. Everard. emcor. Walsall. Pet. Nov. 2. Nov, 19, at 

hidf-paat ten, uL offlco of Sols. Wilkinson and OlUesple, WiiUall 
CUTTLNa, HoitACE EVKKARD. uuctioneer, Swansea. Pet. Nov. J. 

Nov. 14, at three, at Uiu Nulson wine und spirit vaulUi, NeLaou-st, 

Davib. Joseph Trorvtok, farmer, Hepscott Red House. Pet. 

Nov. 2. N'jv. 17, »t twelve, at olHoti of Sola. Hoyie, Shipley, and 

Hoyle, Newo.iflt.o 
Seardkn, Charles, painter, Leeds. Pot. Nov. 4. Nov. 30, at 

eleven, at orttoe of .Sul». Me*Hrs. Mlddltton, Loeda 
I>ORNAT, CUARLKti CaMILLE, soda wat«r manufacturer, 

Btaplo. Pet. Nov. 1. Nov, 'A at twelve, at office or Sol. Thorno, 

Eaton. Juh.v, builder, LcIoeat«r. Pet, Nov. 3. Nov. 19, at twelve, 

at tlie LeLcvMU;i»hir« Trade Pnitectlon Society, Now-st, 

Loloester. Sols. Stone and Billion, Leicester 
EVATJi<, DAVID, innkeeper. OoiiwU Cavo. Pet, Oct, 30. Nov. 16, 

at two, lit olUce of Sol. Lloyd, Lamptter 
JfRT, TnOM.48, cjrrluKe proprietor, Ilfracomhe. Pet, Oct. 2D. 

NOV. It), at twelve, a*- offlce of Sol. Beiicraft., Biirnataple 
Oek, Joseph Benson, fcchoolmasier, Chiro. Ptt. Oct. 29. Nov. 

23, at four, at office of Sols. Evans and Eagles, John-at, Bedford- 
Oeit, Oeorgb Edward, clerk In holy orders, Limlnffton. Pet. 

Nov. 2. Nov. 17, at eleven. At the Three Chou^liH hoi,el, Yeovil. 

Sols. H. a. and S. Watw. YoovU 
Gibson, UtNRV Bullock, ck-rk, Wlnd-or-rd, Holloway. Pet. 

Nov. 4. Nov. 10, at three, at Bidler's hotel, laa, Uoibom-hiU. 

Sol. Lewis, FuritlvBl's-lnn 
Groom, Tuohas, provision dealer. Upper Dorsot-st, VouxhalL 

bridge-rd Pel. Oct. ai. Nov. IG, at tUiee, at office of Sol. 

Cooper. CharlnfT-croi'.s 
GR068, HlsNUV tiLE.NN, shoc manufacturer, Northampton. Pet. 

Nov. 3. Nov. 19, at three, at office of Sol, Bocke, Northampton 
Balky, Geohoe, and Mann, William, woollen manufacturers, 

Batloy CVrr. Pet. Oct. 2a. Nov. 18. utthrve, at the Royal hotel, 

Dewsbury. Sols, Ibt>ersan, Dewsbury, and J. 6mith, Bintuil 
Hahubk, KBENEZER, ffrooer, Hlirh-st, New Brumpton. and Uljii^h- 

Bt, Old Brouipton. Put. Nov, 4. Nov. 20, at lour, at office of Sol. 

Hayward, K^xihcster 
Harris, Joseph, contractor, Walaall. Pet, Nov, 2. Nov. 18, at 

cloven, at offlce of Sol, TravU Tlj^n 
Haywakd, James, coach builder, iJ;mbory. Pet. Nov. 2. Nov. 

20, at three, »t office of Sols. Me&i>rs. KUby, Banbury 
Boad, CHAKLEd. brewer, Fareham. Pet. Nuv. 3. Nov. three, 

at offlce of Sol. Gable, Far«ham 
HOBB3, JOHN.lnnkeeper, Frembigton. Pet. Oct. 31. Nov. 18, at 

eleven, ut offlce oi Sot. Beucroft, Barnstaple 
BOLK, BENJAMIN, papcrhanger, Brlntol, Pet. Nov. 4. Nov. 14, 

at elevuu, at ottico ol Sol. Eiiory, Bri.'^tol 
BOPTKOKr, UKNuy, plumber, TuubridKO WellH. Pet. Oct. 28. 

Nov. 2U, at fcU/ven, at office of Sol. Bortou, Tunbridge Wells 
HOUKSBLL, GEunae Collins. fla« maker, Mlnoile«, and Georgo- 

Mt, Mluories. Pet. Nov. a. Nov. 2tt, at two, at offlcra of Sols. 

PeokUain. Aliiltlund, and Peckham, Kjilghtrider-st, Doctors'- 

Bou»DEN, .Hark, carpenter, West Hani. Pet. Oct. 24, Nov. 13, 

at eleven, at the Twu Bi-uwers. Hltfh At, Stratford. SoL Kig:by, 

Half Motm-crCH. ItiUoKton 
HCMPUHiEs, William, plumber, York. Pot, Nov. 3. Nov. 19, 

at eleven, atolhce of Sul. Crumble, York 
Jones, William, tobaeconlut, Manchester. Pet. Nov. 3. Nov. 

25, ut three, at office of Sol. Rylance, Manchester 
Jot, Cuai:le», out of bu»lneai, Lowmau-rd, Jiickson's-rd, Hollo- 
way. Pet. Nov. 3. Nov. •£), at three, at office of Sols, Shum, 

Croa.4mun, and Cro»iiman, King^B-rd, Bedford-row 
JUKLi^, hrtl'lic:*, i^ucta-, Knriuutrvii. 1"««. No*, 4. WOr. SO, ftt 

eleven, at officea ot Sol. Sheldon, Wednesbury 
Kelly, Patrick JobEPH, boot deiUur, Saiiord. Pet. Nov. 2. 

Nov. 13. at three, at office of Sola. Me*srs. Fox, Manchester 
liESLlE, William DfNXAN.halrdrtsser, Han-ogate. Pet. Nov, 3. 

Nov. 20, at twetve, at the George hotel, Hurru^ate. Sol. Dale, 

Lewis, William, RoldBmlth, Birmingham. Pet. Nov. 5. Nov 

n,at thiwe, at office of Mei-srs. Sbarp, Argyll-chmbs. Colmore' 

row, BiiiiilnghutiL. Suls. Janiti^s uud Uert^m 
IjONSEN, Thomas Brinton, victualler, Brifitol. Pet. Nov. 3 

Nov. 20, at twelve, ut office of Hancock, Trlggs, and Co,, ac 

countant^, Bi'ib&jl. Sola. Benson and 'fhoma», Bri»tol 
MicuAU, albehtine Herve Bizet, teacher of dancing:, Brigh- 
ton. Pt:t. Nov, 4. Nov. 25, at eleven, at office u( Sol. Holthain, 


Millard, William Benjamin, furnishing ironmonger, Wands- 

wortli-rd. Pet. Nov. 2. Nov. 19, at tlirec, ut office of Bourn and 

Pry, Paternoster -row. Sol. Cooper, Charing-croas 
XillioaN, William, ntutf manutaccurer, Glusbum, near Crosa- 

bUlB. Pet. Oct, 20. Nov. 20, ut eleven, at offlce of Sols. Lan- 
caster and Wright, Bradford 
XORaAN, EVAN, grocer, Old Kent-rd. Pet. Nov. 5. Nov. 30, at 

two, at office of Izard and Botts, acoountanta, *fj, Eastcheap. 

Sol. Noon, Blomtleld-st 
Negus, Joshua, painter, Oodmanchc^tor. Pet. Oct. 30. Nov. Iti, 

at two, at the George hotel, Huntingdon. Sol. Gachee, Peter- 
VnvfaAs, Uauricr, publisher, Manchester. Pet. Nov. 4. Deo 

4, at two, at office of Sols. Heasrs. Nuttall, Manchester 
OWKN,- DAVID, chemist. Rhayader. Pet, Nov. 2. Nov. 21, at 

half-pBE«t twelve, at office of Sol. Ewlng, Newtown 
F£ASK. Abraham, provision dealer, Chorlton-on-Mcdlock. Pet. 

Nov. ;(. Nov. IB. Bt Uiree. ut office of Sol. Heywood, Manchester 
PlTCHFORTH, ROBERT STAFFORD, joiner, Stanley, near Wake- 
Held. I'lL. Nov, i., ut eleven, at office of Sola. Barratt 

and Senior, Wakefield 
FOOLBY, GKOiiOE Hendy, assistant BOcn>t.-iry to a compan>', 

Southall. Pet. Niiv. 2. Nov. 20, at throe, ut offlce oi Sol. 

Christmas, St. John's chumbent, Walbroook 
BOBINSON, Frank, Kellowa-rd, Haverstock Hill. Pet. Oct, 29. 

Nov. 2i;. at three, at office of Sols. I<affrance, Plews, Boyer, and 

Baker, Old Jfwry ohiunbers 
B0BIN8ON, George Frkderick, paper merchant, Manchester. 

Pet. Nuv. 3. Nov. 25, at three, at offloe of Sols. Sutton and 

EUlutt, Miiuchester 
BOE, FRANcif. victualler, Taddington, Pet. Nov. 3. Nov. 21. at 

four, a t ihe Shakespeare hotel. Spring-gardens, Brixton. Sol. 

Bent, MnncheMtwr 
Booth. Freueru*. fodder merohont. Ciinterbury. Pet. Nov. 2. 

Nov. 17. at two, at the Guildhhlt collee house, Gresham-st. Sols. 

Sankcy, &on, and Flint, Cint^rbury 
Sardeant, George, journeyman sawyer. Great Bridge. Pet. 

Oct. 31. Nov. 20, at four, at office of Sol. Sholdim, Wednesbury 
SLATTkR, William, stationer, uiaukfrturBrii, Kuuthwark, Put. 

Oet.2U. Nov. 12, at two, at offlce ol J. H. R. Broclce, 1, Guild- 

hflll chaij bera. Baling hoi l-st. Sol. Arnold, Fluabury-pavement 
Spence, * RANCIB ALVRJSU, uo tmdo, BonchurUi, near Ventnor. 

Pet. Nov. 4, Nov. 20, at two, at the Old Ship hotel, Brighton. 

Sols. UadMdun und Tieheino 
Spencer Glokue, oyfcter merchant, Brighton. Pot. Oct. 31. 

Nov. 21), at three, at office of Sul. Nyo, Brighton 
Stanpohi>, William, clieeHemonger. Jiii^^'titon. Pet. Oct. 31. 

Nov. 24, ut three, at offico of Sol. Nye, Brighton 
Stead, Richard, »ci-ap dealer, BUmluglium. Pet. Nov. 4. Nor. 

18, at tlacc, at office oi Sol. Parrj', Blruitiigh.-im 
Stewart. Elizabeth, ^tatloiicr. Oxtou. Pet. Nov. 3. Nov. 18, 

at thrtre. ut olflco of J. O. B. Mawbi-n. iicoountuut, 8, Duuc^in Bt, 

Bhkenlieud. Sol. Ander»on, Birkenhead 
Stonely. ALFRED JoUN. buUdor. Biilnc-Ia, near Wakefield. Pet. 

Nov. 3. Nov. itt, at throe, at btnce of Sols. Burton and Moulding, 

Stoti-, John, grecngroctr, Bradford, Pot. Oct. 31. Nov. 23, at 

thr«e, ut office of S"l. Hutchinson, Bradford 
Taylor. Vincent, larmer, Frl^kucy. Pet. Oct.3I. Nov. 19. at 

haH-past twelve, at thu Peacock hotel, Boston. Sol. Hyde, 

Temple. Williron, boot and shoe dealer. Scarborough. Pet. 

Oct. 31. Nov. 19, at cluvun, at ofOco of Sols. Booke and Midgley, 

TUBOBALD, FRANCIS WILLIAM, farmer. ThomtOH Hough. Pet. 

Nov. 2. Nov. 19, at two, ut olUce of Sol. Downham, Birkenhead 

WainwrIOHT, Edward, grocer, Blrmingliam. Pet. Oct. 30. 

Nov. 1.1, (It twelve, at office of Sol. Fallows, Birminglwm 
West, Emhanull, ironmonger. Northampton. Pet. Nov. 3. 

Nov. 34, at eleven, at office of Sol. Jcffery, Northampton 
Whitehead, Thomas, china and glaas dcidtT. Lcatherla, 

Holliom. Pet. Nov, :,. Nov. 23, at three, at offlce of Sols. Lewis 

and Lewis, Ely-pl, Hulbom 
Winter, Henry Stephen, stationer, Kensington Hlgh-st. Pet. 

Nov. 3, N'>v. 19, at three, at the Inns of Court hotel, Holbom 

Sol. Heron, Ely-pl, Holborn 

WiRTH, Henri Alexander Victor, Wirth, Joseph Paul 
Edouard, and Wirth. Marie Theresa Pacline. cabinet 
makers. Brlentz. and Boulevards de« Itnlif^ns, Pet Nov. 4. 
Nov, 21, at one, at offlce of Sola. Lumley and Lumley, Conduit-iit 

Wood, Edmund GEORdEPOWYS. retired lieutenant in the army. 
Harcourt-ter, RedclUre-sq. Pet. Oct. 30. Nov, 14, at two, at 
office of Sol. Froggatt, Argyll-st, Begent-;»t 

Gazette, Now 10. 
Allen, JAHE!;. laco maker, Nottingham, pet. Nov. 5, Nov. 26, 

lit eleven, at oftioe of Sol. Wilkinson, Nottingham 
Allen, H.ary Jane, fancy haberdasher, Stourbridge. Pet. Nov, 

5. Nov. 21, at eleven, ut offlce of Sol. Wall, Stourbridge 
ALKER, winu und bt-er rtt;iller, Manchester, Pet. Nov. C. 

Nov. 23, at three, at offlce of Sol. Burton. MunchutiU'r 
Almond, William, and Almond, John, engine bulidi.'rs, North 

Shields. Pet. Nov. 7, Nov. 2.», at eleven, at offico of Sola. Tlnlcy, 

Adomson, and AdomKon, North Shields 
Ambler, Samuel, manufacturar, Dewsbury Moor, in the par. of 

Dewsbury. Pet. Nov. «. Nov. 24,at throo, at offlce of Sol, Sykes, 

A»HEMUUR»T, CfLARLES JAMES, BoUottor's clerk, Moss Sldc, nr. 

Manchester. Pet. Nov. 5, Nov. 23, at four, at oITlco of T. Mot- 

tersh'ead, 2, Victorfa.-.<4t. Mimchester. Sol A.4henhurAt 

Stock and hharc dealers, Chl-^well-Mt. Flnsbury. Pet, Oct. SI. 

Nov, li>, at two, utFinhbLirj'sq-buildinfirs, Chiawell-Bt. Fin.sbury. 

Sol. Bock. Eiitst Iddla-avenue, Learlenhall-st 
Benhah, Helen, nillliiier. Parksido, Kuightsbrldgo, Pet. Nov. 

7. Nov. 2J, ut three, ut offlceii of Sol. Barker, St. Michael's 

Hou-=e, Comhill 
Bkttanzy, John, and Bettanev, William, decorators. Long- 
ton. Pet. Nov. 4. Nov. 2'i. at two, at the Copelaad Arms hotel, 

St'jko-upon-Trvnt. Sol, Welch, Loufiton 
BlflO.i, ANN, wid'jw, Brighton. Pet. Nov. 4. Nov. 23, at eleven, at 

office of Sol. Goodman, Brighton 
Bray, Hdoh, and Smith, Jameh, Itnen monufactareni, Wlgan. 

Pet. Nov. 7. Nov. 24, at eleven, ut officoa of Sola, Sale, Kiip- 

man, Seddon, imd 8:ile, M;\nchc%ter 
Brickmax, GEitRtiE. auctiunoer, Folke-stono. Pet. Nov, S. Nov, 

23, at one, at the Fleur-le-LUi hotel, Canterbury, Sol. Rowland 

Catling. Frederick Jamesi, and Vanputten, James, com 

factors, Catherlne-oourt, Towor-hill. Pet. Nov. 7. Nov. 24, at 

two, Mt office of Cooper Brotiiers and Co, Goorgd-st, Mansion 

House. Sol. Hollams, Son, and Coward, Minclng-la 
Child, Ralph, c<iblnet maker. Sunderland. Pet. Nov, 2. Nov, 

17, at eleven, at offlce of Sol. Tilley, Sunderland 
Cripohase, Joseph Luke, boot manufacturer, Grctat Cambridge- 

St, Hackncy-rd. Pet. Oot. 29. Nov. 18, at three, at office of Sol. 

PhUp, Queen Victoria-st 
Clark, William, farmer, Stopsley, near Luton. Pet. Nov. 5." 

Nov. 20, at one, at office of Sol. Hall, Abchuroh-la, London 
Cooper, John, boot and slioc maker, Birmingham. Pet. Nov. 5. 

Nov. 24, at eleven, at offlce of Sol. Duke, Birmingham 
CURR, David, jute spinner, Miinchetiter and Bury, Pet. Oct, 7, 

Nov. 27, at e.ovftn, :it officua of Sols. Sail,", Shipman, Seddon, 

and Sale, Manchester 
Davis, Edward, uillor, Birmingham. Pet. Nov. 5. Not. 19, at 

two, ut BulUvunt'ii hotel, Ciur's-la, Birmingham. Sol. Kennedy, 

DELAHAYE, Joseph, provlMon merchant, Kcnnlngton. Pet, 

Nov. 6. Nov. ;io, at three, ut offlce of Sol. PritcharU, Euglefleld, 

and Co., Pitintor'a n.ill. Little Trinity-la 
DK pAS.'i, A^BRAHAM DANIEL, mercliont, Kensington-gurdens-ter. 

Hyde Park. Pet. Nov. 3. Nov. 18, at twelve, at the GuildJiaU 

CofToo House, GreahAJn-Ht. Sol. Crump, Philpot-la 
DOWDEN, Edward, grocer, |Edgwarerd. Pet. Nov. 9. Nov. 2^, 

at eleven, at offlces of Sols. Douue, Chubb, and Co., South-sq, 

Gray's- Inn 
DRAKKyoRD, JOH^" T) wiD. 3(J, Ladbrokc-sq, and Great Wln- 

Kt. Alban's-row, Kc-n.iiui^L^n. «i]k mtTchanta. Pet. Nov. ^. 

Nov. 19, ut two, at offices of Sols. Hudson, Matthews, and Co., 

DREW. John Brown, shop fitter and builder, Murray-Bt, Hoxton. 

Chrl«topher-Bt, Hutton-g.u-den, and Hulton Wall. Pet. Nov. 6. 

Nov. Z3, at three, ut the Guildhall Tavern. Groaham-st. Sol. 

Locke, Pavement- chmb."!. Pavement, Finnbury 
Durkee.GeOROE GILBERT, merch;uit, Liverpool. Pet. Nov. 5. 

Nov. ati, at three, at offlce of Sol. Nordon, Liverpool 
ENGLAND, PHILIP NEWBERRY, accountant. Polygon. Somer's- 

town. Pet. Nov. X Nov. 18. at ten, at office of Sol. Hutchinson, 

Vauxliall-bridgerd. Westminster 
Fairbairn, John benjamin, boot and shoo maker, Sunderland. 

Pet Nov. 2. Nov. IB, at eleven, at office of Sol, Plnknoy, Sunder- 
FosDiKE. Robert, ironmonger. Great Yarmouth, Pet. Nov. 6. 

Nuv. 27, at twulvu, at offico of Sols. Worship uud Rising, Great 

Gill Arthur Edwin, com merchants, Woodhouse Carr. in the 

par. of Leeds. Pet. Oct. 31. Nov. 2t, at two, at office of Sol. 

Greene, Leeds 
GillenPIE. WALTER, engineer, Yiewnley. nr. West Drayton. 

Pet. Nov. 5, Nov. 23, at twelve, ut offlces of DeaQ and Taylor, 

7. Klng's-road. Bcdlord-row. Middlesex. Sol. Gllleeple. 
GLAZEBROOK. HENRY, gentleman, Bootle. Pet. Nov. *i. Nov. 27. 

at eleven, at office of G. M. Holt, accountant, 3, Uulon-ct, 

Cui*tle-at, Liverpool. SoU. Jones, Patoraon, and Jonctt, Liver- 
Hanson, Isaac, hair dresser. Buxton. Pet. Nov. 7. Nov. 25, at 

three, ut office of Sol. Bent. 
Heaphv, William, shoe talosman, Hompden-st, Paddlngton. 

Pet. Oct. 30. Nov. 19, at twelve, at offices of Sol. Cattlln, Goild- 

Hewitt, Charlotte WniOHT, widow, farmer, Bloomtleld-tor, 

Plmllco. P'^t, Niiv. 4. Nov. 23, ut tlux}0, at 15, BeUiord-row, 

Sol. Dulgnan ana SuUles 
Heweti', Thomas. dr.iper. Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Pet. Nov. 7. 

Nov. 2:1, ut two, ut office of Sols, J. G. and J. E. Joel, Newcastle- 
HiAH, Henry, coach builder, Cheltenham, Pet. Nov. G. Nov. 

21, at three, ut offlce of Sol. Stroud, Cheltenham 
Hird, Robert, the younger, grocer, Wc*t Hartlepool. Pet. Oot. 

31. Nov. 23, at tUitie, at offlce of Sol. Bell, West Hartlopofjl 
HocKEN, Hknky. cominUsion agent, Comhell, par. Gwinnear. 

P(!t. Nov. 7. Nov. a, at twelve, ut office of Sol. Trevena, 

Holland, SAMrEL GEORaB. builder, Hoelcy. in par. Sheffield. 

Pet. Nov, 0, ut twelve, at office of Sol, Mellor, Sheffleld 
HOLLi», Georoe Frederick, ooai dealer. Birmingham. Pet. 

Nov. 5. Nov. 20. at eleven, at offioeof Sol, Beeton, Birmingham 
HoPKlNSON, Jou.v LaNCASTMB, gfooer, Blrktjnlieud. Pet. Nov. 

3. Nov. 2u, at two, iit office of Sol. Downham, Birkenhead 
Jamieson, Joskph, and JAM1E80N, FREDERICK JOHN, drapers, 

Old Shotlon, Pet. Nov. 2, Nov. Id, at throe, at offlce of Sol. Bell, 

Johnstone. JohnGrindle. tailor.ftewport. Pet. Nov. 6. Nov. 

23, ut two, at office of Sol. Glbbs, Newport 
Law, Elizabeth, grwer. Wodnc*bury. Pet. Nov, 6. Nov. 24, 

at eleven, at offlca of Sol, Slater, Butcrofl. D.vla8ton. Sol. 

EdwanUs, Darlaston 
Leuoett, John, builder. Pond cottage, Pond-ter, Leader-at. 

Chelsea. Pet. Oct. 29. Nov. 19, at three, at offlce of Sol. Boy- 
dell, South-sq, Gray'«-lnn 
Livett, Richard, builder, Balhnra. Pet. Nov. G. Nov. 2C ut 

three at office of Sol. Hiwper, Newgate-st, London 
Mackay. John Edward. dn.per, Mlddiesborough. Pet. Nov. 4. 
Nov. 25, at twelve, at. Mrs. Barker's Tomperonoe hotel, Bridge- 
Bt We^t. Middle*^ borough. Bol. Bnlnbridge, Middle&borough 
Mar-suall, John, auctioneer, Rlpon. Pet. Nov. 6. Dec. ;i^ at 
threi;, ut office of Messrs. Arrownmlth and Winn, solicitors, 
Ripon Sol. Walfitell.NorthaUorton 
Matthewman, Be.vjamin, sen., and Matthewmax. Henry, 
cutlery uJHUufacturori*, Sheffield. Pot, Nov. 4. Nov. 20, at two. 
at the Cutlers' Hull, Church-st, Sheffield. Sols. Messrs. Clegg. 
McKlNNELL, Joseph, paper atalnor, trading under the style of 
Edmund Grime and Co., Anooats. Pot. Nov. 5. Nov. 24. at 
three, ot offices of Sola. Bole, ahlpman, Seddon, and Sole, Man- 
Mbars. Henry. Ironmonger, Sunderland. Pet. Nov. 4, Not. 19, 
at eleven, ut ofHcu of SoL Hope, Sunderland 

METCALFE, William, grocer, York, and Bo,ton Spa. Pet. Nor 

4. Nov. 23, at three, at offlceof Sol. Crumbie, York 
MILLER, John. Ironmonger, Liverpool. Pet. Nov. 7, Dec. S, at 

eleven, at offlce of Sol. Lowe, Liverpool 
MOORE, Daniel, grocer, Tottington, near Bury. Pet, Nor, K, 

Nov. 24, at twelve, at office of Sol. Watson. Bury 
MORGAN, John pinn, and elworthy. reubbn, coal acaisn; 

Edmonton. Pet. Nov. 4. Nov. 2e, at two, at offlce ot acds. 

Willoughby and Cox, Fleet-st, London 
Ord, Robert, and Purvis. Jahe.«i. tailors, Berwick-upon-Tweed. 

Pet, Nov. 5, Nov. 2.1, at two. at the R«d Lion hotel, Berwick* 

upon-Tweod. Sol. Douglas, Berwick-upon Tweed 
Oswell, Richard, grocer, AUrincham. Pot. Nov. 5. Nov.S,afc 

throo, at offlce« of Sol Mann, Manchester 
Painter, Frederick CHARLEr^, hosiery warehouseman, Leio«^ 

ter. Pet. Nov. 7. Nov. 24, at twelve, at the Marlborough Head, 

Welford-rd, Leicester. Sol. Petty, Leiorater 
Palmer, George, Medstnon, Putney. Pet. Nor. 5. Nov. 30, at 

three, at offlce of Sol, Mnntoa and Morris, Lombeth-hUI, 

Queen Vtctoria-«t. B.C. 
Peacock Thomas, mantle manufacturer. New Church-rd, Cam- 

berwell. Pet. Nov. 4. Nov. 20, at two, at offlce of Sol. Chester, 

Newlngton ButtA 
Peacock, William, wheelwright, Kondal, Pot. Nov. 7. Nov, 

21, at eleven, at the Board Room, Markot-pl, HendaL. SodS 

Thomson and Wllfton, Kvndal 
POLLirr, William, joliior. Bradford. Pet. Nov. 5. Nov. 37, at 

thrtse, at offlce.s of Sol. Law. Manchester 
Brmfry, Jo.siah, civil engineer, Bos<^nibe-tor, Uxbrldge-rd, 

Shephenl's Bush. Pet. Oct.. 28. Nov. 19, at thr«e, at offio* of 

Sol Stolbird, Chancery-la 
Robert.'^ Robert, and Oliver, Thomas William, meroeni, 

Oswe^lry. Pet. Nov. 5. Nov 33, at twelve, at offloe of tb* 

Home Trade As-soclatlon, 8, York-st, Manchester. Sol. Domuw 

Oswest ry 
RoBOTTOM, John, fruiterer, Bradford. Pet. Nov. 7. Nor. 1^ 

at four, at office of Sol. Atkinson, Bradford 
HUDD, James, baker. Old-st-rd, St, Luktw. Pet. Nov. 7. JTw, 

27, at twelve, at office of Sol. Child, South-sq, Groy'a-lnn 
Salton, Walter Thomas, public accountant and shipowner, 

R(iod-la, London, and Lowestott, Pet. Ni>v. 7, D©0. 3, at two, 

(it offlci- at Sol. Famfield, Lower Thames-st 
Serukant, John, drill master, Battersca. Pet. Nov. 5. Nov, S^ 

at two. at offloe of Rol. Jones. Wandsworth 
SEVER. CharlEjs, pointer. New Maldon. Pet. Nor. 7. Nor.M, 

at two, at the George inn. New Maldon, Sol. Simpson, New 

SiMHOMDH. James Edward Nation, cigar importer. Wolbrook, 

Ludgate-circus, and yueon-si-bldRs, g.teen Vlctori»-8t. Pet. 

Nov. 5, Nov, 23, at two, at offlce of Sol. Chapman, Fen- 

Smallwood, JOSEPH, bootmaker, Epsom. Pet, Nov. 4, Nov, 

10, at two, at offlce of Sol. Montagu, Bucklersbury, London. 
SMITH, Petbr, rope mauufaoturer, Ranuibottom. Pot. Nor. 4L 

Nov. 26, at eleven, at offlce of Sol. Leigh, Manchester 
Solomons, Abraham, travelUng Jeweller. King-^ton-upon-Hall. 

Pet. Nov. 7, Nov. 23, ateloven. at offloe of Sul. Jorde^on, Hall 
Steven.s, Frederick Hildebrand, u captain iu the Royal 

Navy, Plymouth. Pet, Nov. 7. Nov. 33, at twelve, at offlca d 

Sol. Derry, Plymouth 
SUTCLlFFE. John, cotton warp manufacturer. Bradford. Pet. 

Nov. (J. Nov. 24, at three, at offlceof Messrs. Wlggleewort hand 

GlosHop, accountants, 33B, Kirkgate, Bradford. Sol. Ureatn^ 

Taylor, John William, and Grey, Alfred, auctloueeca. 

Lime Vilki, Peckham Rye, and Linden-grovo, Nunheod. P«*« 

Nov. n. Nov. 24, at twelve, at the GuildhaU Coffee Honsek 

GrcAham-Ht. Sol, Rooper 
Taylor, William, cheesemonger, Essex-rd, Islington. Pet. 

Nov. 0. Nov. 25, at three, at offlce of Sol. Kelghley, l«oa- 

TAYLOR, William Blaguon, bookbinder. Bath. Pet.NoT.5, 

Nov. 23, at twelve, at offlce of Sol. Rlckette, Bath 
Temple, WiLUAM. belt manufsoturer, Ramsg.«La. Pet. Nov.! 

Nov. 20, at three, at the Ball and George hotel, Bamsgrate. Sols. 

SunkoyandCo., Ramsgate. ; 

Thompson. Tho.mas, gr>cer, Liverpool. Pet. Nor. 5. Nor.SXv 

three, at office of A. W. Chalmers, accountant, 55, Penwlok-^ 

Liverpool, Sol. Collins, Liverpool „ . „ , «t m „«. 

Thorlev. a»-«Dc», joihw, liteaey. Pot. Nov. 4. Nor.altS 

cievSn, atoffloe of Sol, Puddock, Hanley 
Cndcrwood, William May, cheesemonger, Kingsland-riU 

Pet. Nov. 5. Nov. 23. at two, at office of Sola. Carter and BeU* 


ViN.sEN. Henry, and Vinsen, Walter William, ooacb 
builders, Cambridge. Pet. Nov. 3. Nov. 'M, at two, at theDlfA- 

bolt hotel, St. Audrew's-st, Cambridge. Sols. Fetch and J■^ 
rold. Cambridge 

Wakefield. GEOROE, saddler, Gun-stroet, Tower. Pet. Nov. f, 
Nov. 21, at a quarter-p!«t ton, at the Black Lion, New Mon- 
tague-st, SpltaUielda. Sol. Wakefield. Gun-street, Old Artillery- 

Wall, Georoe, stone carver, Wlgan. Pot. Nov. 0, Nov. 3l,a» 
eleven, at offlce of Sol. Fnance, WUran _^_^ 

Wal?ih, Thoha-s Joseph, boot and shoo dealer. Mancbertet, 
Pet. Nov. 7. Nov, 3il, ut throe, at the Clarence Hotel, Sprlag* 
gardens, M;mche."*ter- Sol. Leikjh, Manchester 

WARNER. Frances Sophia, chovsomonger, Klng-at. WestSnu»- 
field. Pet. Nov. S. Nov. 24, at eleven, at the GuildhaU Coin* 
House, Greah:im-st. Sol. P^rce and Son, Glltspur-st 

Waters, Patrick, fruiterer, Liverpool. Pet. Nov. 5, Deo. i at 
three, otoffice of Sol. Lowe, Liverpool 

White. William Henry, cement m:inufacturer, Rochester, and 
Honduras Wharf, BankJ^lde, Southwork. Pet. Nov. 5. Nov. 0, 
at twelve, at the Rectory Uoo'ie, St. Michael's alley. Comhlll. 
Sol. Parker, Watney, and Chu-ke, St, Michat^rs-olley, ComhUJ 

Wilkinson, MAKK,pla"teror, Nottingham, and BullwelL Pet. 
Nov. .'i. Nov. 27, ut three, at the Asj*ombly Rooms. l<ow-p«v»- 
ment, Nottingham. Sols. Cranoh and 8tr(>ud,N'>i.Ui»gh»m 

WlNB<;oM, Edwin, accountant, Croydon. Pet. Nov. 3. ««.■"".«» 
at four, at offlce of Sols. Klach, Son, and Hanbury, WclUng- 
ton-«t, Stnuid o .♦ v 

Wood, Gkoiuie. provision merchant, Bnishfleld-street, Spit**' 
fields, and Kssex-rd, Isllnfirton. Pet. Nov. 6. Nov. 23. at thrt% 
at otnce of Sol. Whlttlngton. Bi.>:hopsgate-et Without 

Worth. John, scrap Iron dealer. Birmingham. Pot. Nor. 6, Nor, 
2"^. ut one, ut offlce of Sol. Harrison, Birmingham 

YEOWELL. Eliza, widow, baker. St. John'a-rd, Hoxton. Pi*- 
Nl»v. «. Nov. 23, at two. at the GuildhaU Coffwo House, Groaham- 
st. Sol. Terry, Grcaham-et, Bank 



BARNARD.— On the STth Sept.. at Rangoon. British Bttrmah,tb« 
wife of F. J. Barnard, Esq, barrlitcr-a' -l;»w, of a W)n. .^_ 

Cary.— On the7th inst.,atSi. Johns-vUUs Upper Holloway.M* 
wile of George Cory, of Llncola's-inn, baiTlsLer-at-law, of a 
dnughter. _ , — « 

Cooke.— On the 3rd Inst., at the BIma, Derby, tho wife of F. D. 
Cooke, solicitor, of a daughter. . 

Lawrance.— On the 8th In«t., at 12. Kent-terruce. Regent s^pan, 
the wife of George Woodford Lawrance, of Lincoln s-uin, 
barrUter-at-Iaw, of n win. , ,^ i— 

MATTHEWS.— On the 4th Inst., at Eastbourne, tho wife of cnaraa 
M M-itthews, solicitor, of a daughter. ,, ^ 

Shiell.— On the .Ird Inst., at 11. AlrUe-plaoe, Dundoo, thewlfea 
John Shiell, juu., lolicitor, Dundee, of aeon. _jr^«f 

Turner.— On tho lOth Inst., at 40, BelsUe-road, N.W., li»e wu«« 
H. Morten Turner, eoUoltor, of a daughter. 


DICK son-Ham I LTON.-On the 7th Inst., at All SoInts'ChtttA 
Hoolo, Chester, S. Johnson R. Dickson, of Chester. 'wl'«»'^' „ 
Agnes, only daughter of the late Alexander Innca H*mUW"» 
Esq., of Dundee. . «— «• 

POOLEY— Bond.— On tho 10th Inst., at Hompatood, J*^ 
Fletcher Poolcy, of tho Inner Temple, borrl^ter-MHaw. to sj^j^ 
eldest dauKht*ir of tho late Edward Bond, Esq.. of Blm »«»»» 
HampDtcad. _,.., tT«^ 

RAlKE8-jAMK8.-On the 10th inst., at Dymook. WUUam^ Avnm 
Ruikes, barrister-at-law, to Vera Maria, daoghter of tne i»» 
John James, Esq., of Newuham. 


LUNN.-On the 5th Inst., at StraUord-apon^rOD, KlUa**""** 
Robert Luim, eoUcltor, o^ed 31. 

digitized by 


J^ov, 21, 1874>] 



C0 lleair^rs anir €axxt»i^oxibmtn. 

[Z.X.IA1I Ca&k AuTT.— The matter shall reoeiTe attention. 

Oboptost. — Ma^trates may order javenUea under fonxteen to be wUpped 
iXLd^r the JaTenile Oflendere Act, but not older oriniinalt. 
onarmoaa commimioationa are InTarlablj rejected. 

. oommonlcations moat be authentioated by the name and address of the writer 
Kut x&eceeearily for pabUoationt but as a inuuantee of food faith. 
1 oommanioations intended for the Editor or ths SoucttOBs* DbpjLBTxest 
slioald be eo addressed. 


rar lines or thirty vxrrda 8s. 6d. | Every additional tan wordt ...... Os. 6d 

A.d.irertuementa spedally ordered for the first psfe are charged one-fonrth more 

An thm above scale. 

^dvertieeoients must reach the Offloe not Zat«r than fire o'clock on Thtiradoy 





Tmstoe — Fnmt aoltf— Appotntnunt of 
xi«w tnutcM „.„..«,.. 38S 


Mortffaee by insolvent p«r»on— Xort- 
gmfo exaeotMl undor sentnU power 
of attorney— Put debt»— laraUdltr 
of morigvn ■*■.. 905 

^partm 08B0RNI; K* QOLDgxITR— 
Benefit buUdlne tocietr— Mortgage— 
Power of MUe— Fature uuibdmenta ... 868 

TroBtee—Credlton* tvnst deed— Ltmaoy 
of tnutee — Apxx>lntinent of new 
tmstee bj ooort— Tnutee Aot« ..«„„ IB 

SiMclal power of appotntment— Ap- 
pointment to tmataa for objeot S70 

ITabc 9. BorT— 
Forelffn bUl of 


r evidK 

exchange — Adheeire 

^ J73 


Trespaaa— Verdict for plaintUT npon 

two oat of (noDy iaaaee— Fifty anil* 
Unj[a damages -,««... 374 


Iioxoox Railwat Com p,u(t asi> B. S. 


Bailway itaaMnjRr daty under S ft S 
Vlot c. 79. «. 2— ExempUoD from 
onder " Chenp Tridna Act** (T ft 8 Vlot. 

0.85}, aa. 6,s, u.. 



Biox) (No. a— 
Intimidation — (K-neral Intimidation 
ezwl intimidation at oonunon law ...... 1 



ZfBAonre ARnctca— 

Toploaof tbeWeek «..,.„ ,«._».... 37 

Sir O. Jewel on Eqolubte Waate........... 30 

Some Dedfllona on the Law of Jotnt-Stook 

OompanlM ...„ «..„.....«...„,««...... i 

Lboulation Avn JvaispRtrnKKCs— 
Supreme Court of Judicature— Report of 
uie Commlaslonera ».......„„......«... 4 

SOLICITORS' JousHAL (Edited bj s SoUot- 


Topioa of the Week «.„—»-.-.«-,..« 4 

Notea of New I>eolsiona..,„„..„„._„.......„.. 4 

Court of Common Pleaa i 

Unclaimed Stock and Dirldenda In the 

Bank of England 4 

Appotntmeuta nndar the Joint Stook 

wlndlns-up Acts „ 

Credltora under BstateB In Chanoety ......... 

Credltora under 93ft 33 Vlot. 0.85 .. ., 

BeporUof Salea 


Cnlla to the Bar -r,,-,.,,,, ,■■■,,-,.„,,-„,. 

CoupANT Law— 
Notee of New Deolalons »..«..,»«...„....». 

Real pbopxrtt ahi> coirTBTAXcnro— 

Notea of New Deolakma «....«..._».»..... 

Elbctioh Law— 

Notee of New Dedalona „„ ,r.»..«i... 


BlrmingbAm Coontr Court .................. 

OraTeaend County Court 

Cambridge Cmtn^ Court .. 

Baickrdptct law— 
Court of Bankruptcy ...«« 
Llrerpool Coon^ Court ^ 

Lboal Nsm ....... 

La,w BTTDEXra' Jocrxal— 
CooncU o( Legal Education... 


Law 80CI stirs— 
Hull Law stodenta' Society ».....».».»..... B1 

Portiimautb Law Stadenta' Society ft'J 

Sheffield Law StudenU' Society »». 53 

Legal Practitioner*' Society .„ 52 

Articled aerka* SootoCy .....«..««. «... 53 

Lboai. OBITUABT I-- 1. SB 


Ths Oazkttzs «...««.„...««..-.«««., 


C|e iTato anJr i\t l^atojers. 

A QUisnos of bankruptcy practice is pending before Mr. 
Be^strar Muhbat, sitting;; as Chief Jadge, which has escaped the 
notice of all the text writers. It is an ancient principle that joint 
creditors cannot prove against separate estate until the separate 
creditors have been satisfied. On this an exception was engrafted 
in favoar of a joint creditor presenting the petition against 
the separate debtor. Although declar^ to be very "dis- 
satisfactory," this exception was maintained. Then in 1849 
the 140th section of the Consolidation Act provided that joint 
creditors should not be entitled to receive dividends out of the 
separate estate. This section was not repealed by the Act of 
1861, and was re-enacted in the Act of 1869. For the first time 
since a period previous to 1849, the right of a joint creditor to 
receive dividends from the separate estate has been raised. A 
brief report of the hearing, which stands adjourned, appears in 
another oolnmn. 

Tm: case of Busier. Aldam (31 L. T. Bep. N. S. 370) decided last 
week hr Yioe-Chancellor Malims, raises a very curious ques- 
tion. 1. B. Pease, by his will dated 1839, among other bequests, 
gave a sum £10,000 to three trustees upon trust to pay the income 
to his daughter Susaiojah Busk for her life, to whom he gave an 
exclusive power of appointment amongst her.children, or the issue 
of deceased children bom in her lifetime, " upon such conditions 
with such restrictions and in such manner as she should direct;" 
vith the usual trusts in default of appointment. Mrs. Bcsk, by 
her will in 1868, appointed the fund, and directed that it and 
other property subject to the same trusts should be paid to the 
trustees of her will, and held by them npon certain trusts for 
investment more extensive than those in her father's will. The 
trustees of her Will filed the present bill against the trustees of 
Pbase's will asking that the £10,000 might l» paid over to them, 
and it was contended that the donee of a special power might 
TOIklTm.— Ho. IWl. 

appoint to trustees for the objects of the power to have charge of 
the appointed fund. The Yice-Chakcellob, however, decided 
that be was not at liberty to take the fund out of the control of 
the original tmstees in order to place it in the hands of the new 
ones appointed by Mrs. Bcsk. We presume, however, that the 
new and more extensive power of investment given by the latter 
was held to be validly created. Doubtless the Vicb-Chancxuob 
was naturally reluctant to take the money out of the hands of 
persons in whom the original testator may be supposed to have 
placed an especial confidence. The will, too, of Mr. Pease probably 
contained the usual provisions for the appointment of new trustees, 
and by implication we may infer that he desired trustees to be 
appointed in no other way. Still the words we have quoted are 
very comprehensive ; and if they would warrant, as is probable, a 
direct appointment of the legal interest to the childran of Mrs. 
Busk, in which case the onginal trustees would be obliged to 
transfer the fund to such children, it is not easy to see why an 
appointment to other trustees should be invalid. Supposing, 
however, their is a deficiency of authority on the subject, the 
Yice-Chancellob was probably taking the more cautious and 
prudent coarse. 

Br an overwbelming majority (upwards of seven to one), the 
Midland Bailway shareholders have approved the proposal of their 
directors to abolish second class trafiic, to reduce first class fares 
twenty-five per cent., and to call into existence a new " special 
class " for the benefit of the very rich and exclusive. Considering 
that the interesting statistics furnished by Mr. Pbice Wiluamb 
to the Times have shown that the first and second class passenger 
are together carried at a profit which does not amount to one half 
the profit derived from the third class passenger, the triumph of 
the " revolutionary " party vras all that could be expected. The 
question next arises. What will the directors of the other com- 
panies do P Not to follow the example of the Midland will result 
in a sure loss of custom, while to follow that example will be 
looked upon by the timid as re-inaugurating that system of 
"ruinous competition" under which one could travel from London 
to ShcfSeld for Ss. We venture to prognosticate that the former 
alternative will be pretty generally adopted, and that before the 
ensuing year is closed, " special " first and second class carriages 
will be the rule and not the exception. 

Thosb who ore learned in the lore of ancient custom will read with 

Pleasure of two customs, still in force, which were incidentally 
rought to notice in the case of I/ynham v. Comhen, before the 
Master of the Rolls, last week. It appears that it is lawful on 
the Isle of Portland for a married woman, by her will, to dispose 
of real estate vested in her ; and, further, that on that Island, in 
cases of intestacy, landed property descends to all sons equally, 
but if a man have no issue of his own, then to all his brethren, 
the child of a deceased son or brother taking his father's share. 
The latter custom is mentioned in all the principal legal works as 
being incident to the tenure in gavelkind, but not so the former. 
It is not, however, hard to perceive the high probability of the 
former custom being dependent on a gavelkind tenure, and there 
is no doubt of the origin of the latter custom, which is closely 
connected with it. Buc the gavelkind tenure cannot be laid in 
every place (Co. Litt. 110 b.), not in an upland town, which is 
neither city nor borough ; yet if lands are within a manor, fee, or 
seigniory, the tenure may be shown to prevail therein, by custom 
of the manor, fee, or seigniory. New, the Island of Portland is a 
manor, of which Her Majesty is tho Lady, and the gavelkind 
tenure is well known to exist on it, so that in the absence of 
proof to the contrary, the power of alienation by will of 
landed property by married women, may be assumed to be inci- 
dent to this peculiar tenure. There are other ancient customs 
still in force among tfae copyholders on the island, of which that 
of church gift, or the instrument by which landed property is 
passed from one person to another, is not least interesting. It is 
executed in tho church of Portland, in the presence of two or more 
witnesses. Moreover, in 1678 the homage presented at a court of sur- 
vey, that if an estate be surrendered to a stranger, who is admitted, 
the next heir to the surrendpror may come into court or into tho 
church within twelve months and a day after the surrender has 
been made and may pay the purchase money and have the 
estate: (Court Rolls of the Manor.) The Real Property Commis- 
sioners, in their third report, very strongly urged the benefit of 
the abolition of the custom of gavelkind throughout England. 
One of the principal difSculties in the way of such a change is the 
pertinacity with which the people of Kent, the stronghold of 
gavelkind, ding to that primitive tenure. The first step towards 
the change contemplated by the commissioners was the passing 
of the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 51. Lands enfranchised by virtue of this 
statute are, with the exception of lands in the county of Kent, 
expressly relieved from the operation of the custom of gavelkind. 

Wx invite the attention of railway directors to the case of Ja/*-'^ 
V. ifetropolUan Bailway Company, decided by the C 
Common Pleas, on Friday in last week. The plaint'' 

Digitized by 




[Nov. 21, 1874. 

into a third class compartment at Gower-street ; a not unnsual 
rush occurred, and the plaintiff's compartment left Gower-street 
containing three more passengers than the proper number. At 
Portland-road a second rush occurred, and the plaintiff's thumb 
was crushed by a porter having slammed the door as the plaintifE 
stood up against the door endeavouring to keep additional in- 
truders out of his already crowded compartment. The jury having 
found for the plaintiff, the court discliarged a rule to enter a nou- 
Buit.on the ground that the insufficiency of the staff provided by the 
defendants was evidence of negligence. " There was evidence for 
the jury," so runs the report in the Times, " that the negligently 
uncontrolled movements of the crowd at the station, together 
■with the negligently permitted overcrowding of the carriage 
(which contained three people too many, causing discomfort 
and restraint to the people rightly filling it) contributed 
to the accident; and the fact that it was a usual thing 
on the Metropolitan Railway to have large numbers of 
persons at their stations threw upon the company a duty to have 
a sufficient staff of porters to control their movements." We 
think the decision to be quite correct, not only upon principle, 
but also upon the authority of Hogan and wife v. Soutli-Eastern 
Eailwaij Company (28 L. 'T. Rep. N. S. 271), in which the defen- 
dants were held prima facie liable for an accident caused by the 
pressure of an unusual crowd upon their platform ; it being held 
evidence of negligence by omission that the defendants had not 
taken extraordiuaiy precautions to regulate the movements of the 
crowd. "I cometothisconclusion," said Justice Keating inllogan's 
case, " with very great reluctance, and I feel strongly that the 
liability of railway companies is largely increased, but if they 
collect these crowds in their own interest, it is for the jury to say 
•what precautions they ought to take, and how far they have taken 
them." We may remark that quite independent of the chances 
of an accident, the omission to provide a sufficient staff of porters 
would seem to fall undoubtedly within the words "reasonable 
facilities for the receiving, forwarding, and delivering of traffic," 
in the Railway and Canal Traffic Act (17 & 18 Vict. c. 31), with 
the administi-ation of which the Railway Commissioners are now 

Few, if any, of the maxims recognised by our law are of so great 
practical importance as that which requires something more than 
an ex parie assertion to support a claimant's statement. Affirmanti 
incumhit prohatio; or looking at the maxim from the point of 
view of the Utilitarian philosophers, we may say, with Bentham, 
" There is a presumption in favour of existing institutions." The 
consequences of impugning a marriage ceremony are so wide 
spreading and so great, that under no circumstauces is a more 
stringent application of the maxim necessary than when such an 
attempt is made. A single reference to the case of Goodman v. 
Goodman (28 L. J., N. S., 745) will make this apparent. There 
a Jew and Christian woman cohabited as man and wife until the 
death of the former, a period of twenty-eight years. Their 
children were brought up as Christians. Of their marriage there 
was no other evidence than that afforded by the general 
reputation that they wero married, and by the fact that in 
a variety of documents they were described as man and 
wife. On these grounds it was decided that the children 
were legitimate and entitled, accordingly, to a fund belonging 
to the Jew's next-of-kin. No positive evidence was produced 
to disprove the presumption of a marriage. In the B readalbane 
case, Campbdl v. Camplell (L. Rep. Sc. Ap. 199), Lord Cran- 
WORTH, in discussing the same and kindred topics, observes, 
" Those who have to decide after the death of parents on the 
legitimacy of children must much oftener than in England " [his 
Lordship's comparison refers to Scotland and England] " have to 
rely solely on the prima, facie evidence of the conduct of the 
parties towards one another, and of their friends and neighbours 
towards them." The case oi Lylex. Ellwood, decided on Monday 
last by Vice-Chancellor Hall, is quite consistent with the above 
decisions. This was a suit to administer the estate of an intes- 
tate. An attempt was made to throw doubt upon the validity of a 
marriage, which, if successful, would have had the effect of making 
some of those who claimed as next of kin illegitimate. The 
learned Judge, having decided that the marriage was valid, quoted 
the above cases with approval, and at the aamtj time poinled out 
how inconsistent is the conduct of persons who dispute the fact of 
marriage without good grounds after having acted on the opposite 

The difficulties which have so often arisen in connection with 
legacies, and which makes the law so involved that one can scarcely 
ever make a general proposition on the subject, but must decide 
each case as it arises on its own merits, have received another 
illustration in the case of Mytion v. Mylton (31 L, T. Rep. N. S. 328), 
decided by Malins, V.C. 'The question was to determine whether 
a legacy was specific or general. C. H. A. Mytion made her will 
on 6th Nov. 1870, in which, after a general bequest, she said : " In 
the next place to my nephew Hexry Whitehead Mvttox the sum 
of £3000 invested in Indian security." At the date of the will the 
testatrix had 5 per cent. Debenture Bonds of the Esist Indian Loan 
to the nominal value of £3000, but they were paid off in her life- 

time, and at her death last February she had no Indian securities. 
The ViCE-CuANCEiLOR decided that the primary intention was to 
give the legacy irrespective of the mode of investment, and there- 
fore it was not necessary to hold it to be specific, and consequently 
adeemed. The learned Judge was no doubt influenced to some 
extent by humane considerations, and by the general indisposition 
of the court to construe a legacy as specific unless the language of 
a testator is perfectly unambiguous. But there certainly have 
been cases, scarcely if at all distinguishable from the present, 
where legacies have been interpreted as specific, and when the 
more natural construction would be to consider them demonstra- 1 
five. For example, a legacy of " my stock" or " part of my stock" I 
has been held specific. So in the case of Humphreyg v. Humphreyt ' 
(2 Cox. ISf), a bequest of " all the stocks which I have in the 3 per 
cents, being or about £5000," was decided to be specific, as was also 
a bequest of "the whole of my property in the public funds." 
Some of the commonly-cited cases on this subject were decided 
before the Wills Act, and it has been one of the many indirect con- 
sequences of that Act, that legacies have since been more frequently 
construed as general and not specific as between the date of ihe 
will and the testator's death the amounts in particular invest- 
ments frequently vaiy ; but the present scarcely comes within the 
scope of the latter class of cases, as both the amount and the 
investment are expressed. It is difficult, therefore, to see the 
grounds of the Vice-Ciiancellok's judgment. If a partioular 
amount, constituting a particular fund, which is clearly described* 
be bequeathed, the legacy is as much specific nqw as ever it was. 
It may, indeed, be said, that here the fund is not accurately 
described, being referred to simply as "Indian securities" and 
this may be taken as one of those slight circumstances of which 
the court will always take hold, in order to avoid deciding a legacy 
to be specific. But on the other hand it may be argued that as 
parol evidence of the state of a testator's funded property is now 
admissible, such evidence showing there were no other Indian 
securities, would have sufficed to make the present legacy specific. 
We cannot, however, regret the Vice-Chancellor's decision, though 
wc are not free from doubt whether he has correctly interpreted 
the authorities. 



a. \ 

Mr. Fitzjames Stephen, Q.C, makes a somewhat remarkable 
contribution to the literature of codification in the Fall Mail 
Gazette of Wednesday. His paper is entitled "Law and Science," 
and therein ho replies to a previous writer in the same journal 
who drew a parallel between legal science and physical science. 
Mr. SxEruEV admits the analogy, but says, " for my own part I 
think that the words 'science' and ' scientific ' are much out of 
place in connection with law, and serve only to darken counsel." 
Ho adds, " The really important question about the laws of any 
country is not whether theyare or are not scientifically applied, 
but whether they are or are not convenient ; whether they 
are clear, precise, so arranged as to bo easily accessible to 
every one who is interested in their contents, and, above all, 
so framed as to promote the interests of the public at large. It is 
quite possible that law might be scientific to an extreme deiijree 
in the sense in which the author of the articles in question uses 
the word, and yet be as bad as possible when tried by all or any 
of these tests." We thoroughly agree with this, and this is the 
objection which we took when first reviewing Mr. Sueldos 
Amos's Science of Jurisprudence. Every day our law in >te 
application becomes more thoroughly practical. Certainty 
essential; it should be attained as nearly as possible at all 
The chief value of Mr. Stepuex's contribution is to be found in 
illustration of what can be done in the direction of simplification. 
Ho selects the question which has been dealt with by several 
decided cases — Contract by letter, when is it complete ? Hereon 
he classifies the propositions of law thus : 

1. A propofal becomes a promise as soon as it is accepted. 

2. A proposal may be withdrawn at any time before it is accepted. 

3. A person to whom a propoeal is made shall not bo afftcted by its 
withdrawal till that withdrawal comes to his knowledge. If ho *'"*?~ 
the proposal before he knows of its withdrawal, the proposer is bound DJ 
his acceptance. jj^ 

4. When a proposal is made by post and is to bo accepted by post, BJ 
acceptance is complete as against tho proposer as soon as the letter * 
acceptance is postwl, if the letter of acceptance reaches the proposCT. 

5. If the letter of acceptance is lost by tho fault of tho poet office, » 
otherwise without the default of either the proposer or the acceptor, 
proposal shall be deemed to have been refused. 

6. If the letter of acceptance is delayed by the fault of the post ^^, 
or otherwise, without the default of either the proposer or the aooap"*- 
the proposal shall be deemed to have been accepted at the time when »■■ 
letter containing it was posted, unless the delay caused was so long as 
be equivalent, in tho opinion of the judge or jury by whom any l^^^f. 
upon it has to bo decided, to its loss, in which case the letter shaU w 
deemed to have been lost. ■ ■ » » 

7. If the loss of or if delay in the delivery of a letter containuiK»| 
proposal or the acceptance of a proposal is caused by the default ol ^m 
sender, the sender shall be responsible for such delay. v^«j 

8. The aoeeptance of a proposal maybe withdrawn at »"? *''°1 t f 
or at tho moment when the acceptance reaches the proposer, ■">• j 
proposer shall not be affected by such withdrawal till it <"'°'®,'i,a t 
knowledge. If he does not receive notice of the withdrawal until M ^ 
received notice of the acceptance of the proposal, he i* not bound nj 
withdrawal. .. 

This is very difficult work, and Mr. Stephen is bound to adnu 


led by 


I^ov. 21, 1874.1 



ihat these roles are not a complete statement of tlie result of the 
sases on the suhject. He conclndes, howeTer, and in this oonclu- 
non we thorongbly agree with him, that a large n amber of decided 
sases relate to matters on which a bad plain rule woald be much 
better than the chance of obtaining the best possible rale after a 
fall discnssion of all the decisions and principles which can 
possibly be connected with the subject. 

H.OW far are common carriers liable for the negligence of other 
caripiers in conveying goods entrnsted to them by snch carriers ? 
nniis important qnestion in the law of carriers has been recently 
discnssed in one of the American Superior Coarts, in the case df 
the Chieago and N. W.B. Railway Company v. N. Line Packet Com- 
pany. The material facts of the ciwe are these : — A. delivered to 
tlie appellants a nnmber of articles consigned to himself at Lee, 
Missouri, and took the nsual receipt. At the place of delivery it 
■was discovered that some of the articles were missing. A. there- 
upon brought an action against the appellants and recovered 
the -value of the missing articles. The present action was brought 
l>y the Chicago Company against the respondents to recover the 
amount. At the trial it appeared that the Packet Company had 
safely delivered the goods to a connecting line of railway for con- 
-veyance to their destination. Judgment in the court below was 
Siven for the respondent. In the Court of Appeal there is a clear 
statement of the American law on the qnestion at issue. It may 
be summed up by saying that where goods are lost by one carrier 
in a line of carriers composed of several, the carrier to whom the 
Koods are delivered by the consignor shall be liable for such loss ; 
Dut the consignor shall not be precluded from suing the carrier 
actually guilty of the negligence. It is also laid down as a 
corollary that the only the first carrier and the carrier guilty of 
'•^Hgence are liable for the loss. On this ground the appellants 
lost their action. The equitable character of those rules cannot 
be questioned. If the first carrier, not being the actual defaulter, 
is sued for such a loss, he is not without remedy against the 
wrongdoer, and, as observed by the conrt, it would not bo con- 
siatent with justice to require the consignor to spend time and 
money in finding out the carrier who hi^ made himself liable ; 
on the other hand, the limitation that the first carrier can 

J)roceed only against the carrier who has occasioned the 
OSS, must commend itself to anyone who considers the merits of 
the case ; indeed, it has every reason in its favour that furness 
can suggest. We take the more interest in this decision of tho 
American Supreme Court inasmuch as it is substantially a state- 
ment of the law of this country, so far, at least, as the liability of 
the first carrier is concerned. But the dicta of the court on other 
points are at variance with the principles recognised in Mytton v. 
The Midland BaUway Company (4 H. & N. 615). There the 
plaintiff took a ticket at a station on the South Wales Railway 
lor a town on the Midland Railway. He delivered his portmanteau 
on the last stage of the journey to a guard of the latter company ; 
bat on arriving at his destination it was missing. The railway 
company issued tickets for the entire distance by mutual arrange- 
ment. The Court of Exchequer held that, as the contract was an 
entire contract with the South Wales Railway Company, the Mid- 
land Railway Company were not liable. 

In a recent case in the Supreme Court of Illinois an interesting 
qnestion arose as to the measure of damages. The Chicago 
Building Company lent a sum of money to one Crowell, taking 
from him a trust deed with the usual insurance clauses. Shortly 
before the expiration of the policy, he offered to continue it him- 
self. The offer was not- accepted. In the deed was inserted a 
provision which allowed to the building company the right of 
choosing the insurance company with the poUcy should be effected. 
This is an important provision, as will appear in the sequel. On 
the day after the expiration of the policy, the company entered 
into arrangements for insuring at a certain insurance oflSce ; but 
no policy was made out, because it was first necessary that the 
officials of the insurance company should make an examination of 
the house proposed for insurance. The house, however, was 
destroyed on the following day by the great Chicago fire of 1871 ; 
and the insurance company became insolvent from the same 
cause. It was quite clear that the building company were liable 
for a breach of contract, and, consequently, liable for the damages 
that accnied ; but what was to be the measures of damages P 
English lawyers are familiar with the rule down in Hadley v. 
Saxendale, namely, that the damages to be recoverable must be 
witbin the contemplation of both parties. The American jury, 
directed by another rule, found a verdict for the full amount of 
the policy agreed to be procured, less a reasonable premium. Had 
they a correct criterion of the measure of damages under the cir- 
cnmstances ? Let us see. The building company having the 
right of selecting the office at which the insurance should 
he made, did exercise their discretion by selecting a com- 
pany to which no reasonable objection could be made. If 
the insurance had been complete, Cbowell could hare looked for 
payment to that office, and to that office alone. Conscquentlv, 
the damages which the parties had in mind were such as would 
result from a breech occasioned by neglecting to insure in tfa« 

selected office. This vieir of the case does not seem to have been 
put to the jury. The Court of Appeal, however, not only recog- 
nised it, but reversed the judgment of the court below. " The 
Chicago Building Company, - said the learned judge who delivered 
the opinion of the court, " must be held liable to the extent that a 
policy in that company would have afforded the appellee indem- 
nity, but no further. There can be no reasonable doubt but that 
for the disastrous fire that occurred about the date of the tnuii- 
action between the parties, the insurance wonld have been effected 
in that company. . . . Whatever dividend the company may 
be able to pay will be the criterion for ascertaining appellee's 

A DECISION of practical importance was pronounced on Monday 
last, by the Chmp Jddgb of the Court of Bankruptcy, in 
Ez parte the Sheriff of Herefordshire; Be Smith. This was 
an appeal from the order of the County Court Judge of 
Worcester. Smith, a fanner, cattle dealer, and vendor of cattle 
medicine, borrowed a sum of £1000 in 1872, from a Mr. Mason. 
The lender foiling to procure payment, levied an execution upon 
the former's stock and effects for the sum of £1074 48. 3d., the 
debt, interest, and costs ; and on the 18th May, the sheriff sold 
the stock and effects. On the 25th he paid the proceeds to the 
execution creditor. The debtor filed a petition for liquidation in 
the Worcester County Court on the 30th May. On the Ist of 
June a notice was given to the sheriff by the debtor's solicitor 
that Smith had filed the petition onder the Bankruptcy Act, 
1869. A trnstee was appointed and a resolution passed in favour 
of liquidation by arrangement at the first meeting of creditors. 
The 87th section of the Bankruptcy Act 1869, provides that 
" where the goods of any trader have been taken in execution in 
respect of a judgment for a sum exceeding £50 and sold, the 
sheriff . . . shall retain the proceeds of such sale in his hands for 
a period of fourteen days, and upon notice being served on 
him within that period of a oaukruptcy petition having 
been presented against such trader, shall hold the pro- 
ceeds of such sale, . . . but if no notice of such petition 
having been presented be served on him within such period 
of fourteen days ... he may deal with the proceeds of 
such sale in the same manner as he would have done had no 
notice of the presentation of a bankruptcy petition been served on 
him." The learned Chief Judge considered the case from two 
^ispects : First, was the debtor a trader so as to come within the 
87th RRctinn ? Secondly, had the sheriff so neglected his dutjr as 
to make himself liable to pay the amount of the levy over ag>ain ? 
His Hononr decided the first question in the negative. The 
debtor certainly does not come under any of the categories con- 
tained in the first schedule of the Act of 1869 ; and it has long ago 
been decided by Lord MANsnELD that the question whether a man 
is or is not a trader is a matter of law and not of fact, and there- 
fore to be decided by the court : (Hankey v. Jones, 2 Cow p. 745.) 
In examining the second question, the learned Judge spoke very 
pertinently of the hazardous duty of the sheriff under the Art, but 
as his Lordship thought that no notice that conid be acted upon 
had been given in this case, the sheriff was free from any charge of 
negligence. The order of the County Court Judge was a<Tordiii^y 
discharged. We notice this case because it is one which may, and 
must often be of importance in any cases that turn upon the con- 
struction of the word " trader," as well as npon such as necessi- 
tate an inquiry into the duties c^ sheriffs. 

A BECEST. decision of the Master of the Rolls in Honytcood v. 
Honywood (L. Rep. 18 Eq. 307; 30 L. T. Rep. N. 8. 671) ~ 
demands the serious attention of the Profession, and most 
be considered as weakening, if it cannot destroy, the authority 
of such cases as those of Boll v. Snm^rville (2 Eq. Ca. Abr. 
757) and Ormond v. Kynnersley (7 L. J., O. S., 150, Ch.) 
before Lords Hardwicke and Lyndhnrst, which have always 
been considered leading authorities upon the title to equitable 
waste, and, down to a recent period, to nave governed the law upon 
that subject. The manner in which the authority of Ormond t. 
Kyn-nersley has been now impugned by the present Master of the 
Rolls is the more startling because the case immediately before 
him was one of legal waste, and did not require the observations 
which he thought it right to make, and which mnst therefore 
be considered strictly to have been obiter dicta. 

Mrs. Hooywood was equitable tenant for life impeachable for 
waste, and the only qnestion before the court was whether the 
proceeds of the sale of ordinary timber ordered by the conrt to be 
felled in the regular course of thinning, or which were fit to be 
cut, and would not improve by standing, belonged to her absolutely. 
Yet Sir G. Jessel (after stating the rule at law as to legal waste, that 
it belongs to the first vested estate of inheritance, and the two 
exceptions to that rule, in equity, viz., first, where the tenant 
for life colludes with the retnainderman in wrongful cnttir.cs: 
and, secondly, where the cnttinga are rightful under an ordt^r of 
the conrt ; in both which exceptional cases equity makes th<-t" 
money follow the uses of the settlement) travels out of h*' 
lay down the law in the following words with regard to *' 

Digitized by 




[Nov. 21, 1874. 

the proceeds of cquitabkvraste: "The same course" (i.e., making it 
follow the settlement uses) "as I understand it (there is a 
decision of Lord Lyndhurst in Ormoiid v. Kynnersley the other 
way, but modern decisions — the M. R. does "not specify them — 
" have settled the law) — is adopted in the case of the commission 
of equitable waste ; that is, where ornamental trees, or trees which 
could not otherwise " (qiuvre, otherwise than how ?) " be [cut down 
even by a tenant for life, unimpeachable for waste, are cut down : 
there also, as I understand it, the proceeds are invested so as to 
follow the uses of the settlement, that is, go along with the estate 
according to the settlement giving the income to the tenant for 
life and so on." 

Eolt V. Somei-ville vtas a demurrer to a bill by a legal remainder- 
man for life, sans waste, against the husband of a prior 
legal tenant for life sans waste, to compel the husband to account 
for money raised by pulling down and selling several houses and 
outbuildings on the estate, and by taking up and selling lead 
vrater pipes, and by cutting down ornamental timber. The 
demurrer was allowed, as to the satisfaction claimed on account 
of the timber ; and what said Lord |Hardwicke ? (few of whose 
words do not contain a mine of meaning) " I cannot say the 

flaintiflf is entitled to a satisfaction for the timber, which" 
the waste of which he means] " is a damage to the inheritance," 
not (observe) to the land merely, but to the inheritance (of the 
land) ; in which the plaintiff had no interest. 

In Ormond v. Kynnersley the limitations were to trustees, 
in trust to convey to A. for life sans waste, with remainder to 
trustees to preserve, remainder to A.'s first and other sons in tail 
male, remainder to B. for life sans waste, remainder to testator's 
heirs. The case, which was one of equitable waste, was decided 
in accordance with Holt v. Somenille. In the course of his 
judgment, Lord Lyndhurst, referring to Williams v. Duke of 
Bolton (1 P. Wm.268, >i; 3 Ves. 374), which had been pressed upon 
him, and which was not one of equitable waste, said " it is quite 
clear that if " (in that case) " the inheritance had been in third 
persons " (and not in the wrongdoers), " notwithstanding the con- 
tingent estates tail the owners of the inheritance would have 
taken the money. But is there any difference between equitable 
and legal waste ? The principle which applies to the 
one applies to the other, as far as relates to this point." 
And accordingly Mr. Craig, in his excellent treatise on Trees has 
said (writing in 1866), " The Court of Chancery has hitherto 
thought itself bound to follow the law, in declaring the devolution 
of title to equitable waste " ( Craig on Trees, 140). And again, 
"Can the circumstance of the waste being equitable make it" 
{i.e., the timber money) " liable to be settled instead of vesting as 
at law ? Boll v. Somerville, and Ormond v. Kynnersley contradict 
this" (Hid., p. 135). And Mr. Kerr lays it clown that the same 
principles with respect to property to severed timber which apply 
to legal waste, are also genei-ally applicable to cases of equitable 
waste (Injunctions, 282). But it is difficult to see how those 
" same principles " can " apply " if the case of equitable waste is 
to be a third exception to the lo^l rale as stated by Sir G. 
Jessel. The same author intimates his opinion {Ibid. 280), that in 
holding " in two or three cases "—probably some of the " modern 
decisions" to which Sir G. Jessel referred— that the property 
in timber severed by the act of a wrongdoer upon an estate in 
settlement follows the uses of the settlement. Lord Romilly's 
decisions have not been " in accordance with the earlier authori- 
ties." The " two or three" cases cited by Mr. Kerr were those of 
LusliingtoH t. Boldero, 15 Beav. 1 (1851) ; Bateman v. Hotchkin, 
31 Beav. 486 (1862); a.nd Bayot v. Bay of, 32 Beav. 509 (1863); but the 
two last were cases of legal waste, and Lusliington v. Boldero was 
really an authority only (like Bagot v. Bayot) for the position, 
that the estate of inhentance entitled to the timber need nob 
necessarily bo in esse, but that the title of a remainderman in esse 
(unless his title is that of heir apparent) maybe displaced by after- 
born issue of prior tenants for life. The limitations in Lushington v. 
Boldero (which were legal) were to C. B. for hfe, satis waste, 
remainder to his first and other sons in tail, with similar limita- 
tions to W. B. for life sans waste, with remainder to his first and 
other sons in tail, with remainder to H. L. for life sans waste, with 
remainder to his first and other sons in tail. W. B. died without 
issue. In 1850, C. B., being 95 years of age, but having no issue, 
the plaintiff, the eldest son of H. L., and first tenant iu tail in esse 
(who had estabUshed in 1813 his claim to equitable waste committed 
by the bankruptcy assignees of C. B. and H. L. under a joint com- 
mission, the proceeds of which were] ordered to be invested, and 
accumulated), presented his petition for payment to him of the 
fund in court. But Lord Lyndhurst, thinking his title premature 
(as C. B. might still have issue), ordered it to stand over. C. B. hav- 
ing died without issue, the application was renewed and granted. 
The investment and accumulation ordered therefore seems in no way 
inconsistent (as the learned note of Mr. Beavan to Lnshington v. 
Boldero thinks it is) with Itolt v. SomerviUe and Ormond v. Kyn- 
nersley, but simply raised the question whether the estate of 
inheritance entitled to take must be one in esse at the time of the 
wrongful felling. It is true, as observed by Mr. Kerr (p. 282), 
that in neither that case nor in the cases of Welleeley v. Wellesley 
(6 Sim. 497) or Duke of Leeds v. Lord Amherst (2 Phil. 125) were 
either Eolt v. Somei-ville or Ormond v. Kynnersley cited ; but this 

can hardly be a reason for undermining their authority. It ig 
also true that Wellesley v. Wellesley and Duke of Leeds v. AnOiertl 
were cases of equitable waste, but the decree in the former wai 
not that the plaintiff, the first tenant in tail in esse (but who was 
still under age) was not absolutely entitled, but that the " amonidi 
should be paid into court and form part of the Settlement Fund," 
the only uses of which, prior to that in favour of the plaintit^ 
were a trust term to trustees to raise portions for younger 
children. The decree did not say who was to have it. Could that 
case be relied on as an authority that the trustees could raise the ■ 
portions out of the corpus of the timber moneys, or that they 
could even devote the income to that purpose ? The prayer of tlia 
bill was for an injunction only, and the chief question before the 
Vice-Chancellor at the hearing seems to have been the making 
that injunction perpetual. The point as to the property in the 
timber seems not to have been argued at all, and the jadgment 
of the Vice-Chancellor is in just five lines. 

In the Duke of Leeds v. Amherst the limitations were legal, to 
the late duke for life, sans waste, remainder to his first and 
other sons. The duke committed equitable waste in 1808. On a 
bill in 1846 (within twenty years of his father's death) by his 
eldest son, who attained twenty-one in 1819, it was held that "his 
interest being contingent " (we confess we do not see how it was) 
" during his father's life," he was not barred by the Statute (rf 
Limitations, and it was argued on his behalf, but not so laid down 
in the judgment, that if he had filed a bill in his father's life the 
moneys would have " only been ordered into court to follow the nsee 
of the settlement," from whence it is inferred by Mr. Beavan (15 
Beav. 10 n. 7), that " the grounds on which the defence to " (it 
should be "of") "the Statute of Limitations was overruled were 
irreconcilable with Bolt v. SomerviUe and Ormond v. Kynnersley." 

Upon the whole we cannot but consider the law as in an unsettled 
and unsatisfactory state on the subject. We cannot accept the 
Master of the Rolls' decision as countervailing the older autho- 
rities, merely because it is the most recent one ; for they were 
judgments of Lord Chancellors, and it is moreover an extraju- 
dicial opinion. The " modern decisions " on which he relies he 
has not passed in review, or even named ; the older ones he has 
not given us his reasons for dissenting from. 

Since the case of Honywood v. Honywood, however, we fear that 
the observation of Mr. Kerr, written before it, must be regarded as 
more than ever true, " Whether the property in the timber, or 
the fund arising from the sale of the timber, belongs to the first 
owner of the inheritance, or follows the uses of the settlement, is 
a question which is not free from doubt : " (Injunctions p. 282.) 

(Continued from page 5.) 
The Law ot Contributokies. 
In our previous examination of some cases affecting the lav o( 
joint stock companies, we discussed various questions connected 
with the fiduciary relations and personal liability of director* 
We need hardly mention that no attempt was made to give in 
exhaustive analysis of all the cases bearing upon these points of 
company law ; the most we hoped to do was to put before oar 
readers some of the salient features which are of the greatest 
practical importance to the mercantile world. It now remaiilS 
that we should examine in a somewhat similar manner the Law 
of Contributories. Eew branches of the law of joint st( 
companies have been more frequently the subject of decisions in 
our courts of equity than that which relates to contributories; 
fewer still are of so great an interest to shareholders in general 
as well as to persons who are in any way interested in any 
given company. We shall confine our remarks as much as pos- 
sible to contributories under the Companies' Act 1862. The word 
" contributory " was introduced into our legal terminology by 
11 & 12 Vict. c. 45, s. 3, and has since been retained as an appro- 
priate designation of the class of persons who are the subject of 
this paper. Under the Acts of 1848, 1849, contributories were 
divided into two divisions. The first contained, all persons 
entitled to shares of the assets or accruing profits of the company 
when the petition for winding-up was presented ; the second, 
persons from whom any contribution to the company was due. 
One of the chief cases decided whilst the above Winding 
Acts were in force, was that of Norris v. Cottle (2 H. of L. 
647). A company was formed in 1845, and provisionally re| 
tered as a railway company for the purpose of constructing s 
railroad between Birmingham and Birkenhead. Expenses were 
incurred to the amount of above £12,000. The whole under- 
taking was abandoned in 1846. In 1850 the company was wound' 
up under the provisions of the above Act. Norris having ' "" 
appointed official manager, sued Cottle, a member of the pi 
sional committee, as a contributory to the extent of twen^-l 
shares of £20 each. Cottle did not apply for or accept any sh( 
Their Lordships' judgment was in favour of Cottle. 
Brougham, who delivered the judgment, observed, "The 
question before us is whether or not a person by becomini 
member of a provisional committee in a railway or other com* 


Google ^^ 

Nov. 21, 1874.] 



may not yet completely formed .... makes himself liable to 
the other members of the provisional committee .... in respect 
of the dealings between those other members and third parties." 
The gi-ounds of the judgment may be resolved into two points : 
(1) We have the decided opinion of all the Judges of the Common 
Law Courts against the liability at law. (2) There is not the least 
ground on which an equity can be raised as between the provi- 
Bonal committeeman, and the rest of the committee, or their 
officers, unconnected with, and independently of the legal liability 
of that ptarty, as having, either expressly or by implication, 

I anthonsed his companions or their officers to pledge his credit 
with strangers. For these reasons which we have given, almost 
in his Lordships' words, neither law nor equity was on the side 
of the manager. In the same year the case of Jlutton v. Upfill 
(2 H. of L. Cas. 674), came before Lord Brougham, and it was 

I diBcidcd that the acceptance of shares by a member of a provisional 

I committee makes the member a contributory. 

By the Companies Act of 1862, certain distinctions are drawn, 
and the character of the company must be taken into account in 

j determining the question whether one is or is not a contributory. 

I In the case of companies formed and registered under the Act of 
1862, or under the Acts of 1856-1858, every person liable to con- 
tribute to the assets of a company in the event of its being wound- 
up is a contributory. In the case of companies registered under 
•OT of the above Acts, but not formed under any of them, pro- 
lxu>ly the contributories would be those to whom the term is 
applied in the Act of 1862, when it deals with companies formed 
and registered under that Act. Thirdly, in the case of unregis- 
tered compauies, all persons are contributories, who are liable to 
contribute to the payment of any debt or liability of the company 
or of any sum for the adjustment of the rights of the members 
amongst themselves, or of the costs of winding-up. 

Keeping these facts in mind, let us turn to a case reported in 
the Law Times Reports of July 18th (Re The Freehold and General 
Lweitinent Company (Limited) ; Green's case), which will serve to 
illustrate the question before our readers. The facts of this case 
present no vei-y unusual feature. A company was formed in 1864, 
partly by the endeavours of Green's son. In 1865 Green was him- 
lelf asked to become a director, and was told that it would be 
necessary in order to become qualified as a director that he should 
hold twenty shares in the company, but that number would be 
allotted to him as fully paid-up. He declined the office and shares 
until he had satisfied himself respecting the aifairsof the company. 
Heattendedthreomeetingsof thedirectors,andsigned the directors' 
attendance book. In April 1866, Green's name was advertised as a 
director. In May of the same year he wrote withdrawing his 
name from the list of directors ; and again to the same efiect in 
June. Green never applied for any shares in the company, nor 
were any ever allotted to him. On 27th May 1870 the company 
was ordered to be wound-up. The question for the court to deter- 
mine was whether Green was liable for the twenty shares which 
formed the necessary qualification of a director. Many cases were 
cited in support of the affirmative, and wo now purpose to refer 
to some of the more important. In 1780 Kincaid's Case ; Be North 
Kent Uailway Extension liailway Company (23 L. T. Rep. N. S. 
460; L. Rep. 11 Eq. 192) was decided by Vice-Chancellor Bacon. 
By B local Act it was enacted that the subscribers to the under- 
taidng should be united into a company, that the directors 
ahonld bo four, and that the qualification of a director should 
be the possession of twenty-five shares in the undertaking, 
and that H. and three other persons should be the first directors. 

Ml should continue in office until the first ordinary meeting ; 
I at such meeting the shareholders might either continue in 
ce the directors appointed by the Act, or might elect a new 
txxly of directors. At the first meeting directors were appointed, 
but not Kincaid ; to each of these shares were allotted, and no 
other shares were allotted. Kincaid never applied for any share, 
never had any allotted to him, nor paid any sum of money on 
account of any share. Was he a contributory ? The Vice-Chancellor 
held tliat he was, and thought the case determined by the Act of 
incori)oration. Consequently this case is easily distinguishable 
fro m Green's case. The next case is that of Bo Disdcri atid Co. 
W^^ ^p. 11 Eq- 242), which decided that if a man acts as a 
^^■Ktor or shareholder of a company, and he is required, as a 
^^Bdition of so acting, to incur the liability of taking shares, ho is 
^^Kond to take the shares, independently of any agreement. This 
^^■se, however, is distinguishable from that imder consideration. 
Another case is that of Ite British and American Telegraph Com- 
pany [Foiolcr's case) (L. Rep. 14 Eq. 316), where Vice-Chancellor 
Bacon observes, " By being named as a director, he (Fowler) 
became liable to take twenty-five shares ; by acting as director he 
recognised his liability in that respect." Thus it may be said 
with his Honour in Green's case, in all the above cases there has 
been something on which you could fasten the liability. After all, 
the question is, did any liability attach to Green while he acted as 
director ? If so, could he get rid of his liability by renouncing 
the undertaking ? The former question is merely another way of 
Mking whether he did any act which fixed upon himself the 
responsibility of a director. In Be The Metropolitan Carriage ayid 
Sepository Company (Broxm's case) (29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 562 ; 
L Bep. 9 Ch. 102), the facts were as follows: The com- 

pany was formed in 1870. The qualification of a director by 
the articles of association was the holding of fifty shares in 
the company. The promoter of the company induced Brown 
to act as director by promising to give him the necessary 
qualification of fifty shares. Brown consented and took his seat 
as director. Fifty shares were allotted to him, and endorsed as 
fully paid-up. Vice-Chancellor Wickens held that Brown was 
not liable on these shares ; the official liquidator now appealed. 
For the appellant it was contended that where the articles of 
association require the qualification of holding shares, a man who 
acts as director becomes liable to the extent of the number of 
shares necessary as a qualification, and a dictum of Vice-Chan- 
cellor Malins was quoted to the efiect that a person in such 
circumstances was bound to take the shares independently of 
any agreement. In delivering judgment the Lord Chancellor 
(Selborne) held that the qualification clause could not be con- 
strued according to the view taken by the appellant. "The 
qualification does not require that the director shall take shares 
by reason of any contract whatever with the company ; at the 
most it means that if he acts as ho ought to act, with the proper 
qualification, and without which he is disqualified, he must possess 
himself in some way or other, of the necessary number of shares ; 
but in whatever manner ho may manage to possess himself of 
these, if he does so ho has the c|ualification." Hence, the result of 
the authorities appeared to his Lordship to be, that .although the 
acceptance of the office of director for which there is a qualifica- 
tion by taking shares, is a material fact in determining whether 
a man shall or shall not repudiate shares entered to his name without 
his authority, yet his acceptance of such office does not of necessity 
raise the inference that he has entered into a contract with the 
company to accept the shares necessary to his qualification. The 
Lords Justices concurred. Lord Justice Melhsh distinguished be- 
tween shareholders and directors. The latter are not a species of 
what the former are a genus. " The mere fact of being a director " 
says his Lordship, " cannot by itself make a man a shareholder 
. . . but he (the director) may agree to take the shares in any 
other legal mode by which sharesraay be acquired." Brown was 
no more than a representative of Bloomfield, the promoter of the 
company ; but Lord Justice Mellish did not mean to say that an 
inference to accept the necessary shares might not bo made from 
a long continued holding of the office of director, and' the allot- 
ment of the number of shares made necessary as a qualification 
for the office by the articles of association. The appeal was dis- 
missed. The ratio decidendi applied here is manifestly inappli- 
cable to Green's case, but it is rather in favour of Green than of 
the official liquidator. The subject becomes much clearer when we 
bear in mind that directors are not necessarily shareholders, 
though a strong presumption may be created in the circumstances 
referred to by the Lord Chancellor. The law of contributories was 
likewise discussed in Ejs parte Carrie and otliers, re the Great 
Northern and Midland Coal Company (8 L. T. Rep. N. S. 472). 
This was an appeal from the decision of Mr. Commissioner Gonl- 
bum to the Lords Justices. Previous to the formation of a 
company certain persons " agreed to hold 100 siiares each, and also 
to execute the articles and memorandum of association when 
ready, and act as directors of the company." They signed the 
memorandum of association for twenty-one shares, as well os the 
articles of association. The articles provided that no shareholder 
was entitled to be a director unless he had at least one hundred 
shares in the company. Were the directors liable to be placed on 
the list of contributories in respect of one hundred shares each in 
the company ? The Lords Justices held that they wore so liable. 
Here again the ratio decidendi does not apply to Green's case. 
Now let us turn to Leeke's case, re The Empire Assurance Cor- 
poration (23 L. T. Rep. N. S. 724, L. Rep. 11 Eq. 100 ; L. Rep. 6 Ch. 
460). Admiral Lcoko was a shareholaer and a director in a com , 
pany which was merged in a new company. He joined in an 
agreement by which the shareholders in one company were to be 
entitled to shares in the other, and in which he agreed to be a 
director of the new company. Fifty shares in the new company 
were allotted to him, correspouding to the qualification of a 
director. He knew of his appointment as director, and attended 
a general meeting as chairman. It was held that Admiral Lceke 
was a contributor. This case was explained by Lord Justice 
James in Brown's case. His Lordship did not wish any remarks 
he had mado in the former case to be so construed as to give any 
colour to the proposition that the mere becoming a director in- 
volved an agreement to take qualifying shares. 

We have thus gone through the cases which were relied upon 
as being sufficient to establish the right of the official liquidator 
of the General Investment Company to place Green's name on the 
list of contributories. That this right was not established by the 
cases cited is clear. In the present case many new elements are 
introduced. No application for shares was affirmed ; no allotment 
was made; Green received no dividends. He withdrew from the 
office so far back as 1865, nor was it suggested during the nine 
years which elapsed between the year 1865 and the filing the bUl, 
that he was a director. Under these circumstances, it would 
certainly be, as Vice-Chancellor Malins remarked, a most unreason- 
able and unlawful thing to place his name on the list of con- 

digitized by 




[Nov. 21,1874. 


Second Report of the Commissioners appointed 

to inquire into the Administrative Departments 

of the Courts of Justice. 
To the Queen's Most EjccelUnt Majesty, in Her 
Uiijh Court of Cliancerij. 

May it please your Majesty : In obeyincf that 
part of your Majesty's commission which directs 
US " to make diligent and full inquiry into the 
nnmbers, salaries, superannuations, and cost, and 
the administration, regulation, organisation, man- 
ner of appointment, and of promotion, for each 
establishment" of the administrative departments 
of the courts of justice, it appeared desirable to 
look back to what had been done in time past 
onder similar commissions. Such a review ap- 
peared likely to be not only historically interest- 
ing, brit instructive also, and enggestive as to the 
coarse which might be pursued upon the present 
■occasion. Further, it seemed desirable that, in 
view of possible administrative changes, to flow 
from the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, from 
the rules of court to be framed under sanction of 
that Act, and from the recommendations of the 
present commissioners— a statement should be 
drawn up descriptive of the several legal adminis- 
trative offices as they now exist. Such a state- 
ment would serve the purpose of a historical 
record. It would also seem a new point ot depar- 
ture for future inquiries. VV^e have, accordingly, 
under the heading of each office in the Courts of 
Chancery, Common Law, Admiralty, and others, 
^ven as succinct an account as was consistent 
with clearness, of the duties done, the number 
«mployed, and the salaries taken. 

In looking hack at the work of past inquiry, the 
eye meets iu 1732 the first recorded attempt on 
the part of the Government to understand the 
legal departments as a whole, and to deal with 
them on that basis. In that year a royal commis- 
«ion was issued to thirteen commissioners, direct- 
ing them " to make a diligent and particular 
survey and view of all officers, clerks, and min- 
isters," in the Courts of Chancery, Common Law. 
Eoclesiaftical causes, &o., in Great Britain and 
Wales and Berwiok-on-Tweed. The commissioners 
■were "to examine, inquire, and find out, by all 
lawful ways and means, what oflScers, clerks, and 
ministers do, and of right ought to, belong and 
appertain unto each of the said courts respec- 
tively ; and what service, charge, and attendance 
doth belong unto every of the said ofiioers, clerks, 
and ministers ; and what fees, rewards, and wages 
«very of the said officers, clerks, and ministers, 
and their substitutes or under clerks, may and 
ought lawfully to have and take, fur and in respect 
of their several offices and places ; and what fees, 
rewards, and wagps have of late time been unjustly 
incroached and imposed upon his Majesty's sub- 
jects by any of the said officers, clerk*, and miu- 
isters, or «ny of their substitues or under clerks : 
and also, what extortion, oppressions, and exactions 
have been used or committed by any of the said 
officers, clerks, or ministers, or any of their substi- 
tutes or under clerks, in the execution of their 
several offices or places." The Commissioners 
were also to propose remedies for any abuses that 
might appear. 

The directing words in this commission are 
sufficiently suggestive of the state of things which 
oxisted in the legal departments at that time. 
Indead the " extortion, oppressions, and exactions' ' 
under which suitors and prisoners suffered at the 
hands of the administrators of justice, were 
notorious and crying enough to excite the atten- 
tion of the House of Commons, and it was on 
petiuon of that assembly that the above-recited 
commission was issued. 

In the course of our report will be shown what 
officers existed at the time the commission reported, 
viz., 8th Nov. 1740; and aide by side will appear lists 
of officers who were found to be in existence on sub- 
Beqnentlj-madc inquiries, and at the present date. 
Of the report itself it will bo enough to say that 
whilst in some cases the duties and functions of 
the officers are set forth, the Commissioners seem 
to h»ve confined themselves in the main to investi- 
gating the character and extent of the fees taken, 
and to siposing such abuses as they deemed to 
require remedy. They classed the fees taken into 
" lawful fees," i.e., fees which were authorised by 
specific order or by prescription ; " reasonable 
fees," i.e., those which were not so authorised, bnt 
which seemed fair and right ; and " obsolete fees," 
i.e., those which had ceased, or should cease, to be 
taken. The table of fees thus drawn up, and 
eanctioned in 1713, served as a guide for officers 
and suitors thenceforward. Bnt ctrtain practices 
in connection with fees were condemned by the 
Commissioners, and it would seem haid indeed for 
any one to justily them. Thus a fee of 23. was 
allowed to be a proper fee to be paid to the 
masters on every summons to attend them, but 
the recognised practice of seldom or never attend- 

ing till a third summons had issued and treble fees 
been paid was condemned, and a standing order 
was recommended to make the second summons 
peremptory. It appeared that the masters recived 
lOs. per skin for engrossing deeds, bnt that, by 
systematic delays on the part of their clerks, 
solicitors were compelled to engross for themselves, 
and the suitors to pay such charges twice over. 
The useless annexation of accounts and schedules 
to the masters' reports, in order to make up 
greater copying charges, was emphatically con- 
demned, and so was the nefarious practice of 
writing in words (paid for at per word) instead of 
figures, the constituent parts of an account. This 
latter practice, wo are not astonished to hear from 
the Commissioners, " not only increases the length 
of such copies, but in some sort of "accounts the 
same are thereby frequently rendered unintel- 

The issue of an uimecessary number of warrants 
and certificates ; the practice of charging suitors 
for fresh documents rendered necessary by mis- 
takes made in the offices ; the charge for copies 
of consent orders, whether required or not by the 
parties ; the " grievance" involved in the unneces- 
sary length of recital in orders ; the charging as 
and for separate affidavits, of " schedules, certifi- 
cates, or any other papers annexed" to an affidavit; 
the insistance, under an order made in the 4th 
and .5th Philip and Mary, on parties requiring 
copies of depositions before the Examiner, taking 
also copies of their own interrogatories, which 
they did not require : the practice of putting six 
words in a line and fifteen lines in a sheet, and 
charging at per sheet ; the exaction of " expedition 
money" for doing the office duties : wore amongst 
the practices exposed and condemned. It is right 
to add that the Commissioners presented that, in 
some eases, e.g., the Masters in Chancery, " the 
present salary allowed by the Crown, and the law- 
ful fees belonging to their office, are not an 
adequate recompense to them." 

In order to understand the meaning of this 
presentment, it is necessary to call to mind the 
circumstances under which the Masters iu Chan- 
cery and some other officers were about this time 
appointed to their offices. The salary and the 
fees would have constituted a sufficient remimera- 
tion for the work done, had there not been ap- 
pointment money to pay to the Chancellor, and if 
there had not been sinecurist grantees of the offices 
to demand yearly rent from the actual office 
holders. When a man had to pay 5000 guineas 
for a mastership, as Master Elde and Master 
Thurston each had to pay to Lord Macclesfield, 
and when the Registrars had, before drawing an 
income for themselves to satisfy the requirements 
of " his Grace Charles Duke of St. Albans, and 
George Cholmondley, Esq., then called Lord 
Malpas, and James Beauclerk, Esq.; cnmmonly 
called Lord James Beauclerk, during their lives 
and the life of the longer liver of them," there is 
small room for wonder that copy was indefinitely 
multiplied, and that fee-bringing summonses were 
issued in excess of need, (a) 

The facts brought out at the trial on impeach- 
ment of Lord Macclesfield, showed the depth to 
which corruption had penetrated the whole pro- 
fession. Lord Macclesfield himself was not 
ashamed in his defence to plead custom, and 
tendered evidence to show that the prices of 
appointments of sworn clerks, and even of 
" waiting clerks," hod risen greatly of late years. 
The whole of the facts brought out on the trial 
iu 1725, aad of those which led to the establish- 
ment of the Accountant-General's office as a pre- 
ventive against trafficking by the Masters in the 
suitors' money, were before the Commissioners, 
whose report was not presented till 1740. 

The Commissioners drew up tables of fees which 
were to be paid; proposed to give suitors and 
their solicitors a right of summary appeal in cases 
of undue levy of fees ; to require the officers to 
give receipts when asked for fees taken ; and to 
arrange for periodical revisions of the tariff, to 
be signed by the Lord Chancellor and Master of 
the Rolls, and to be exhibited to the public. 
Finally, they propose to prohibit for the future, 
the sale of offices, and the discharge of offices by 
deputy. " The sale of offices," they apprehended, 
was " one of the principal causes of the increase 
of fees ; the purchasers generally finding them- 
selves under the strongest temptations, by all 
ways and means, to increase their profits (which 
must be at the expense of the suitors) in order to 
make their offices worth the money they pay for 
them ; and where the offices are held for life only, 

(o) There was hardly on office in Chancery which 
wns not a patent office, and whereof the duties were not 
systematicallj discharged by deimty. In the case of 
the Subpiena Office, of which, at least, it niii;ht have 
been supposed that the fiinctioDS would have been die 
charged iu person, it seems thot there were three 
patentees, one of them a ch'rgvmau, appoiuted under 
the Greiit Stial "at the nomination of Anne Charlotte, 
Lady Down ger Frecbeville." Bnt neither tiominatrix 
Dor nominees attended to the offiee. Depaties were 
appointed to do the work, and to earn for themselves 
aud their patrons the fees taken from the publio. 

or other uncertain estate, the temptation is still 
the stronger, as the hazard is greater." 

These Commissioners did not carry out that 
part of their commission which related to the 
common law courts, bnt confined themselves to 
the chancery and the offices of the Lord Chancellor 
and the Master of the Rolls. 

The sub-commissions appointed by these Com- 
missioners, however, made reports to them upon 
the common law courts and offices, but it does not 
appear for what reason the Chief Commissioners, 
or, as they are styled " Lords Commissioners," 
did not consider and report upon the work of 
these committees. 

It is a fact to be noted that the report of this 
commission, though made iu 1740, was not made a 
public document till 1815. 

In that year was made the next considerable 
effort to diminish at once the cost and the burden- 
someness of legal administration. On the petition 
" of the knights, citizens, and burgesses, and 
Commissioners of shires and boroughs in Parlia- 
ment assembled," a commission w^s issued on the 
0th Feb., 1815, to inquire and report upon the 
duties, salaries, and emoluments of the several 
officers, clerks, and ministers of justice." The 
Commissioners, who occupied exactly seven yean 
about their work, having presented their last 
report on 9th Feb., 1822, made full inquiry into 
all the courts of Chancery and Common Law. Bat 
they seemed to have confined themselves mainly 
to the consideration of the fees which were taken, 
and which ought of right to be taken, rather than 
to the general question of whether the duties in 
respect of which the fees were payable, ware 
necessary or not for the due administration of 
justice. They took the report of the Commis- 
sioners in 1740, and the order of court which, ia 
17-13, followed that report, as their points of de- 
parture, and contented themselves in the main 
with certifying the reasonableness or otherwise 
of the fees authorized by the orders of 1743, and 
those which had been invented since. Th^ 
stated, in their report of 0th April, 181G, on this 
part of their subject, in relation to the Court of 
Chancery, " Our opinions upon the reasonable- 
ness of emoluments have also been materially 
aifectod by the great change in the wealth of the 
country since the order of 1743, the decreise in 
the value of money, and the increased rate at 
which skill and industry of all kinds are now 

It appears from the report that, in 1815, there 
were attached to the Court of Chancery the same 
officers as belonged to it in 1740. with the excep- 
tion of the Secretary of Appeal (from Admiralty 
and Ecclesiastical Courts), and the Clerk of the 
Leases. A sub-committee of the Commissioners 
of 1740 could not trace the former office beyond 
1720, when Lord Macclesfield was Chancellor, 
though the Commissioners themselves said they 
traced it to 1705, when Lord Cowper made an 
appointment to the office. But the Commissioners 
seem to have had doubts as to the need for a 
Secretary of Appeals as well as of a Clerk of 
Appeals, especially as one person united in him- 
self the two offices, and took the fees of each. At 
any rate, the office does not appear as extant in 

The Clerk of the Leases, whose duty it was to 
make out all grants and leases of Crown lands, 
was probably between the dates of the two com- 
missions, absorbed in the office for carrying oat 
the Acts whereby Crown lands were made national 
property, and ceased to be the subject of appli- 
cation to the Sovereign in his Ch.incery. 

On the other hand, there appear in the report 
of 181G, but not in that of 1740, the Commiseionm* 
of Lunatics, the Tipstaff (o) to the Master of the 
Rolls (he is, however, indicated as the holder of 
an "ancient office"), and the secretary, train- 
bearer and usher to the Vice-Chancellor of 
England. The office of Vioe-Chancellor of Eng- 
land was created in 1813, by 53 Geo. 3, o. 24. 
{To be confinued.) 


s with » 


The Times recently favoured its readers i 
leading article founded on the address of the Presi- 
dent of the Council of the Incorporated Law Society 
(Mr. F. J. Bircham), delivered at Leeds, on the 
2l3t. ult. " Mr. Bircham," says our contemporaiy, 
" fully recognised the fact that in these days the 
claims of every profession to consideration and 
to power must be tested by its performances and 
by their truth. The wealth and authority of thftj 
Inns of Court may have been improperly andt 
consciously diverted to'the sustenance and ag 
dizement of one branch of the legal Profesaion 
though both might have asserted a co-equal in. 
heritanoe, but these questions of primitive right 

(n) The Tipstaff is mentioned, 
report of 1740, imder the head of 

incidentally, in the 
' Doorkeeper.'" 



Nov. 21, 1874.] 



«» not likely to be inveBtigatod by a Parliament 
of practical men at this time of day." Wii quite 
e with the tenor of the foregoing observations, 
:cept that to snggest that the exclusion of soli- 
oltors from the privileges of legal education in 
connection with the Inns of Court is due to an 
almost nnooni>ciou3 action on the part of the 
benchers cannot be the opinion of anyone familiar 
irith the ways and means by which suoh exclusion 
las been persistently brought about. Again, the 
commotion occasioned in the ranks of the Pro- 
fession by the provisions of Lord Selborne'a 
Bills, affords a fitting opportunity to solicitors 
to assert the primitive right in question, if 
only for the purpose of securing intact their 
ftent establishment, and leaving their present 
ited icvenue unimpaired. Adverting to Mr. 
ham's complaint, in regard to the exclusive 
id irresponsible power vested in the Inns of 
)art in relation to colls to the Bar, to which 
•observations of Mr. Bircham's we called atten- 
tion at the time, our contemporary observes : 
"It will be seen, however, that even admitting 
this grievance (to our mind it is beyond dis- 
pute), the changes for which the solicitors are 
prepared to agitate are neither numerous nor 
startling. The Bar need not apprehend an aiJvance 
along the whole lino on the part of the other 
branch of the Profession, or it such an attack is 
threatening, thire is no intimation of it in Mr. 
Bircham's address to the conference at Leeds." 
What leads our contemporary to the use of the 
eipresi-ion "an advanoo along the whole line" 
we fail to discover, but it certainly foems to 
imply that there is some sufficient cause or ground 
for sniih unprecedented action on the part of 
solicitors, yet our contemporary does favour 
its readers with even what is in the mind of 
the writer, which justifies the suggestion. For 
our own part we know of nothing which would 
justify such violent action, which in fact, it is 
not in the power of solicitors to use, and were 
it so it would not be resorted to. That certain 
reforms arc needed in regard to the relation at 
present existing between the two branches of 
the Profession, cannot be questioned, and their 
aooouiplishmeat rests rather with the public and 
a paternal government in the interests of the 
pnblio, than with either branch of the Profession, 
who should, however, ventilate the subject of 
such reforms as are considered by them to be 

We do not hesitate to say that the observations of 
Mr. Barton, of London (upon the subject ot in- 
vitiog barristers to anniversary dinners) made at 
the meeting of the Solicitors' Benevolent Associa- 
tion at Leeds, the proceedings at whioharo reported 
is a recent issae, indicate a rationiil jealousy, and 
have our entire concurrence. Such invitations 
ought most certainly to be confined to solicitors, 
and Mr. Burton was unquestionably correct in 
his assertion that it is an undignified course for 
the society to issue invitations to members of the 
Bar and others, and expect them to contribute on 
sach an occaaion to the funds. We were much 
surprised on the occasion of the last anniver- 
i^ary dinu'T to notice so many barristers pre- 
sent, many of whom are not subscribers to the 
association. Imagine for one moment the Bar- 
risters' Benevolent Association, recently estab- 
lished in consequence of the necessitous oomli- 
tionof many members of the Bar, ha%'ing its 
ancivenary meeting presided over by the Presi- 
dent of the Council of the Incorporated Law 
Society, it would be scouted by every member of 
the Bar. And why ? The answer is Profe-ssional 
jealoQsy. As Mr. Burton very properly observed, 
solicitors are not invit«d to contribute to the 
fimds of the Barristers' Association, and it is, 
thenfore, far more dignified and significant that 
the same exclusion should obtain as regards the 
Solicitors' Association, the directors of which 
Hill, wo are certain, never appeal in vain to 
solicitors for funds to further the purposes of 
Inch an excellent organisation. The thanks of 
the Profession are due to Mr. Burton, moreover, 
for again urging the desirability of amalgamating 
this society with the Law Association, and which 
we hope is soon to be accomplished. 

Ix regard to the observations in our last issue 
upontiio subject of the Judgment Extension Act, 
a ooimtry solicitor writes : " A great number of 
oficers of various regiments who are quartered 
hm, incur debts to a considerable amount with 
the tradesmen, and just on the eve ot their 
departure they promise to remit the amount on 
th«r arrival in Ireland, and some of them give 
aeceptancoH which are frequently dishonoured, 
and the debts are seldom paid. They take no 
BOtiou of applications. Presently they are 
^(djrad to a foreign station, embarking from some 

port in Ireland. Some die ; others retire and aro 
not to be found. I have had m'tny cases of this 
kind. I have written to the Horse (iuards, but 
with no beneficial result ; and therefore I think 
that where debts are contracted in England, 
writs from our Superior Courts (and it should bo 
extended to the County Court practice) ought to 
be available for service ia Ireland. Defendants 
could instruct their attorneys to appear and 
defend if necessary, but, as matters now stand, it 
appears to me the only course for a creditor to 
adopt, is to instruct some solicitor in Ireland to 
issue process, and then the creditor would have 
to go there to prove his debt. It was an unfor- 
tunate omission in the 18th section of the Common 
Law Procedure Act. Hundreds of persons are 
prejudiced by the want of greater facilities for 
obtaining payment of their debts owing to this 
diSicully. The advanta^^e should be mutual, so 
that where debts are contracted in Ireland, the 
creditor should issue process there, and get same 
served in England, and it should apply to Scot- 
lind." There is very much to be said in favour of 
the views of our oorresondont upon this important 
subject ; but as to the suggested unfortunate 
omission in the Common Law Procedure Act, it 
was on the contrary, a deliberate act of the Legis- 
lature, secured by the action of certain Irish peers 
when the Bill was before the House of Lords. 
Legislation may be fairly required on the subject. 

It has often been said that the Attorneys and 
SoUoitora' Act 1870 (33 & 34, Vict. o. 28), an Act, in 
the main, to amend the law relating to the re- 
muneration of solicitors, is not of that practical 
value and utility which was in contemplation by 
those who framed it and promoted its passing 
into la(7. And no doubt solicitors often avoid 
having recourse to its provisions, conscious that 
sections 4, 7, 9, 10, serve, to unduly limit the great 
and mutually advantageous use which otherwise 
might be mode of its general provisions and 
especially to surround with doubt and uncertainty 
agreements entered into by virtue ot the Act. 
While we hear from time to time of an agitation 
by solicitors for laying counsel open to an action 
for negligence, the better to secure the interests 
of clientii who are litigants in our law courts, it is, 
porhtips, a little remarkable that section 8 of the 
Act now under notice should expressly provide 
that any reservation of responsibility for negli- 
gence, not as might be expected, gross negligence 
only, shall bo null and void. "The provisions of 
Part II. of the Act, as to taking seourity for 
future costs, interest on disbursements, and es- 
pecially the la«t section, giving power to solicitors 
to perform acts appertaining to the office of 
proctor, sullii'ieutly justify the assertion that the 
Act is one the usefulness of which is not to be 
overlooked by the Profession. 

A SOLICITOB writes us in regard to our observa- 
tions of last week upon the subject of solicitors 
paying counsels' fees, that it is really, in large 
businesses, out of the question to expect solicitors 
to make and keep, and they only, an account of 
the money due to counsel for fees. He adds, 
" With my firm it has occurred more than once, 
that coiineel's clerk has inadvertently charged 
fees which have previously been paid ; our rule 
being to pay such fees directly they are received 
in each case. Surely counsel ought to look after 
their own fees. What are counsels' clerks for, ex. 
cept that the barrister may say to a solicitor if he 
mentions fees, ' my clerk will arrange that if you 
will bo so good as to speak to him.' The rule of 
life is that those who are creditors have to look 
after their debtors ; in these days I see no reason 
why coun.sel should claim to have the order of 
things reversed. Counsel are paid, quantum 
meruit, for their services." 

It may not be generally known that in Ireland 
solicitors have a right of audience before the 
courts of Quarter Sessions, and at the Limerick 
Quarter Sessions, recently concluded, before Mr. 
Theobald Purcoll, Q C, previous to the rising of 
the court, Mr. Jonas Blaokall, solicitor, address- 
ing his worship, said : — " One word, sir, before 
you retire. On behalf of the attorneys who have 
practised here before yon at this sessions, I am 
requested to thank you very sincerely for the 
great courtesy you have observed towards every 
member of the Profession." We believe, how- 
over, that no member of the Bar was present 
on the occasion. No doubt it would bo of great 
advantage to the pnblio if solicitors in England 
and Wales had a similar right of audience in 
certain cases. ^^ 

We have received this week a flood of advertise- 
ment cards and notices issued by unqualified per- 
sons, and several letters from solicitors referring 
to thorn, among them the following : — " I inclose 
you a card of a Trade Protection Agency that has 
recently been sown broadcast through this and 

two other counties, the names of the persons to 
whom sent being taken from the Directoriei. 
With offices in several towns, one can readily 
understand the mischief which the Professioa i 
suffers from this class. The Manager offers, inter 
ali'.'.f to obtain time for debtors, and to undertake 
arrangements with creditors Only a few weekg 
since this manager called a meeting ot creditors 
the creditors acoopted Ss. in the pound with secu- 
rity. This presiding genius proceeded to draw 
bills of exchange upon the debtor in tho creditor'! 
flame. He then got the person who was to b« 
surety to indorse the bills, and then he handed 
those documents to each creditor, one of the latter 
was so mystified that he came to ask advice as to 
his claim upon the indorsee (failing payment by 
acceptor) seeing that he was the supposed drawee 
by the aocountant having signed his name. I haS 
no hesitation in advising him to return such a 
worthless document. If the debtor had drawn oa 
his surety there would have been some sense ia 
the matter, but as it was there was none." W« 
fear that the acts complained ot by our corre« 
spondeut do not transgress any Act ot Parlia- 
ment, but if proper puhlicitu is given to the facta 
such an "agency "can hardly continue to dupe 
the public. 

The present mode ot electing coroners for counties 
is certainly cumbersome aud expensive, and wo 
agree with a correspondent, whoso letter recently 
appeared in the Standard, requires great altera- 
tion. On Tuesday the nomination for coroner of 
central Middlesex, in the place of the late Dr. 
Lankester, took place. Tho three candidates who 
paid tho sheriffs' fees with a view of going to tha 
poll aro Dr. Hardwicke, late deputy-coroner ; Mr. 
James Boulton, solicitor ; and Dr. Diplock^ 
coroner for West Middlesex. The result of tha 
election will be known to-day (Saturday). Great 
efforts have been made by members of the Pro- 
fession — among them Mr. C. E. Lewis, M.P. — to 
secure the election of Mr. Boulton. Mr. Langham 
retired in Mr. Boulton's favonr. 

In another column we publish i'l exienso a report ot ' 
an applieal ion against a solicitor, heard on Satur- 
day last before tho full Court of Common Pleaa. 
Lord Coleridge's general observations as to tha 
responsible office of a solicitor are commended to 
tho careful refiection ot those about to enter tha 
Profession. His Lordship said : " Attorneys wera 
clothed by tho court with an exceptional aud 
confidential character, and were oertifioated aa 
persons ot honour and integrity who might be 
safely employed in the conduct of business. It 
was a mistake to suppose that an attorney could 
purge himself by returning money improperly ob- 
tained from a client, and which but fur terror o£ 
the court would probably not have been returned. 
When a solicitor disgraced tho exceptional and 
confidential character that the court clothed him 
with, they should strip him of that character, aa 
unfit any longer to hold it." It is impossible to 
disagree with this enunciation of opinion by hia 
Lordship. It is impossible, moreover, to ex- 
aggerate the importance ot maintaining tha 
highest standard of professional morality among 
solicitors, and if the power ot removing solicitors' 
names from the rolls was to-morrow transferred 
to the Council of the Incorporated Law Society, 
its members, we are sure, would bo equally ener- 
getic in stamping out unprofessional conduct. 

Tee following lectures and classes will be held 
during the ensuing week, at the Law Institation, 
Chancery-lane : — Monday, class (Common Law), 
4.30 to 6 o'clock ; Tuesday, ditto ; Wednesday, 
ditto; Thursday, lecture (Conveyancing), 6 to 7 
o'clock. To prevent interruption during the 
lecture, gentlemen will not be admitted to tha 
room after tho lecture has commenced. 

An appeal from the Liverpool County Court has 
recently been before tho Chief Judge in Bank- 
ruptcy, in which questions of practice affecting . 
the conduct, by solicitor, of proceedings under the 
Bankruptcy Acts, have come before the court for 
decision. We refer to Kr parte Holland, re 
Holden. The point was argued whether tho high 
bailiff of a County Court had the exclusive privi- 
lege of serving summonses issued under sect. 96 of 
the Act for the attendance of a bankrupt or hia 
wife or any person suspected of having in his pos- 
session any of the assets belonging to the bank- 
rupt. The trustee had applied for a summons 
under the section in question, and the solicitor 
asked that service thereof might be effected by 
himself. The registrar directed summonses to 
issue, but declined to allow the solicitor to serve 
it; and the learned judge of the County Court held 
that ho was bound by the terms of the rules to 
direct that summonses nnder the section in ques- 
tion should be served by the high bailiff. The 
Chief Judge held that the matter was one entirely 
within the discretion of the learned judge of tho 
County Coort. The importance hia liordJahip said 

Jigitized by 




[Nov. 21, 1874. 

of baving sammonses under the ytith section pro- 
perly served must strike everybody, and very good 
reasons might exist for directing that servioe in 
this ease should be effected by an oUicer of the 
oonrt. Without ooniining ourselves to the facts 
of this particular case, we do not hesitate to say 
that in very many cases it would facilitate the 
dispatch of such business as that in question, to 
allow solicitors acting for trustees to serve such 
summonses. Solicitors are often better informed 
as to the whereabouts of those proposed to be so 
served, and are, moreover, more likely to take un- 
usual trouble to effect such service. 

The Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, and Halifax 
Creditors' Commercial Association, with offices in 
Leeds, Halifax, London, Dublin, Manchester, 
Edinburgh, Belfast, and Liverpool, has of course a 
debt or law department, the correspondence in 
which has already reached over 20,000, and the 
managers in a printed application for payment 
say: "Be good enough to give it your imme- 
diate attention, and so save the additional ex- 
penses attending our further proceedings." The 
above information is founded on a notice sent us 
by a Leeds solicitor, who complains of the raids 
committed by such societies ou the domain of 
the Profession , ^_^^^^ 

At the examination of gentlemen proposing to 
enter into articles of clerkship with solicitors 
practising in Ireland, held on Oct. 30th and Slst, 
in Dublin, out of thirty-five candidates entered, 
only fourteen passed. We are afraid that the ex- 
aminers in England are too lax in their require- 
ments, judging by the few who are annually re- 
jected. Wo ought to add that in Ireland the 
names of successful candidates are arranged in 
order of merit, and that other inducements are 
held out to them to indulge in vigorous study. 
Some such course might well be adopted by 
the English examiners. In fact this course might 
with advantage be adopted in all law examinations, 
as well as the preliminary one in general know- 

A CORRESPONDENT Writing from Blackburn, 
says : " I beg to call your attention to the fol- 
lowing facts : On the 3rd Nov. two cases of per- 
sonation, arising from the municipal elections, 
were heard in our police courts. In each case one 
member of a firm of solicitors appeared for the 
prosecution, and the other member of the same 
firm appeared for the defence. It was intimated 
to the magistrates by both solicitors that they 
were not aware, before coming into court, who 
was retained for the opposite side. The caaes 
were then proceeded with. I merely wish to 
know, through your journal, whether such an 
occurrence was illegal, or only a breach of 
professional etiquette." It is quite out of 
the question to suppose that there was 
anything illegal in the acts complained of, and as 
to whether it was a breach of etiquette, depends 
npon the instructions given by the clients, the 
nature of the cases before the court, and especially 
the explanation offered by the solicitors, must be 
taken into consideration in determining the latter 
point. Their statement to the court shows that 
they considered such a course unusual, and, as a 
rule most undesirable and inexpedient ; and as to 
this there cannot be two opinions. Wo are of 
opinion that had the magistrates had any mis- 
giving on the point they could, and no doubt 
would, have required one solicitor or the other to 
retire from the case, and accordingly have ad- 
journed the case. Again, as soon as the announce- 
ment was made in court by the solicitors, the 
respective jmrties oonld have objected. In the 
case before us the ends of justice cannot have 
been affected by the adoption of a course which if 
usual, would constitute a most objectionable 
practice. ' 

A Darlington Solicitor asks us to state that a 
man, representing himself to be a solicitor, is 
imposing on members of the Profe.ssion, he, in 
fact, not being a solicitor at all. Ho is a tall, 
pale man, with black whiskers, and well dressed. 

Principal and Surett— Giving Time.— The 
holder of a security who agrees with the prin- 
cipal to give time to the surety by so doing dis- 
charges the surety. The holder of a security is, 
in dealing with the security, affected by knowledge 
acquired after taking it as to which of the parties 
liable upon it is principal, and which is surety. 
A financial company by agreement with an agent 
accepted bills of exchange which were discounted 
by a discount company tor the agent, he guaran- 
teeing payment. The discount company were not 
at the time aware of the relations between the 
acceptors and the agent, but were informed before 
the bills matured that the agent was principal, 
and that the acceptors were sureties. After this, 
they agreed with the agent not to proas the accep- 
tors for payment until certain other bills became 

due. Held (affirming the judgment of the court 
below), that the acceptors were thereby dis- 
charged : {Overeiid, Qm-ney, and Co. v. Oriental 
Financial Corporation, 31 L. T. Rep. N. S. 322. 
H. of L.) 


Re An Attorney. 

Saturday, Nov. 14. 

Attorney — Misconduct — Answering affidavits — 

Liability to be struck off the rolls. 
Morgan Howard. — My Lords, this matter stood 
over until to-day, in accordance with an appli- 
cation I made on the part of the defendant, that 
he should be at liberty to obtain copies of the 
affidavits that he had not obtained earlier for 
want of means, and I am instructed now to show 
cause on his behalf against the application. I 
may say, in comparatively few words, what is the 
substance, npon the affidavits filed against the 
defendants, of the charge made against him. It 
appears in 1872 certain real estate was devised to 
the wife of the virtual applicant, in this case the 
person by whom the Law Society was set in 
motion, and the respondent acted for her 
execntors in proving the will, and his duty as 
solicitor to the executors was undertaken. At 
the end of 1872, my Lords, the allegation in the 
affidavits against lum is, that the respondent re- 
presented to the devisee— that is, to her or her 
husband, that the devisee was liable to pay one- 
third of the debts of the testator, and also the 
costs of the probate, and proving the will. At 
that time the persons who came to the property 
were persons not posessed of great means, and at 
that time they had not the money to put into the 
attorney's hands to enable him to defray the 
necessary expenses, and that being the state 
of things, he was instructed by them to obtain 
.£250 upon a mortgage of a house, which, I assume 
upon the affidavits, was one of the houses 
devised by the testator to the wife. That mort- 
gage was executed by them inhis|office in Nov. 1872, 
and then the affidavits state that .£50 of the 
X200 which was obtained upon mortgage, was 
handed by the respondent to the devisee, and the 
rest they retained to pay probate expenses, and 
i835 was given to him out of the ^£250, in repay- 
ment of moneys that had been previously lent by 
him to the devisee. Then there was a subse- 
quent payment by him of £W to the devisee, and 
thus it appears sometime after the end of the 
year 1872, there remained in his hands the un- 
disbursed sum of ^6150, the non-payment of 
which, xinder the circumatanoes stated in the 
affidavit, is the matter that has led to this 
application. My Lords, no doubt I admit freely 
that applications were made, and fruitleaa 
applications, by the party interested before the 
Law Society were moved in the matter for an 
account, but it appears that this gentleman was 
very ill, and still is. He had been ill for a long 
time, he had suffered previous embarrassments in 
in his affairs. There had been an execution in 
his office, hia papers were out of order, and he 
was aware, and some of the applications made 
were necessarily unsuccessful for that reason, 
but considerable delay did arise in re- 
sponding to enquires and ultimately there 
was an application from a solicitor who was 
instructed by the parties to demand an 
account showing the disbursements, and claiming 
repayment of the balance, and on 5th June, 1873, 
there came a letter from the secretary of the 
Incorporated Law Society, which, as I propose 
to read the answer of Mr. Holmes, perhaps I had 
better read. The letter is in these terms: "It 
appears that a Mrs. Child became entitled to some 
freehold property devised to her abaolutely by the 
will of her late father, but there was no bequest 
to her of any part of the testator's personal 
estate, that the testator died in Sept. 1872, that 
the win was proved by the execntors, for whom 
you acted as solicitor. That in Oct. 1872, you 
informed Mr. Child that he and hia wife were 
liable to pay one-third of the debts of the testator 
and the cost of the probate and administration, 
and yon requested Mr. Child to furnish you with 
the necessary funds, that Mr. Child told yon he 
was not in a position to furnish the funds, where- 
upon you advised him to mortgage the freehold 
property for ^6250, which you stated yon could 
obtain from one of your clients, that Mr. Child, 
believing he was liable to make these payments, 
instructed you to obtain the amount on mortgage 
of the premises, which were of the estimated 
value of i;2000, that in Nov. 1872, Mr. Child and 
his wife executed a deed of mortgage to a person 
of the name of Richardson, that Mr. Richardson 
was not present at the execution of the mortgage, 
but you informed Mr. Child that Mr. Richardson 
had given you the money, and you then gave Mr. 
Child and his wife .£50, stating that you would 
retain the rest to pay the debts, probate duties, 
and expenses of administration, that Mr. Child, 
had previously borrowed from you .£25 and .£10 
which he authorised you to retain, and that you 
ou 6th Jan. last, paid Mr. Child and his wife ^£10, 

so that there remains in your hands £155 or 
thereabouts. That Mr. Child frequently applied 
to you to know how the matters connected with 
the estate were progressing, and at feeling dis- 
aatisfied he consulted his present solicitor, and 
that you were then asked for an explanation, 
which has not been given, nor has the money been 
paid ; that you have promised Mr. Child, through 
your clerk, to let him have an account, which has 
been repeatedly asked for, which your clerk 
promised to send forthwith, but that he has not 
kept hia promise. The Council wish me to ask 
you whether you wish to offer any observation or 
explanation with reference to the matter." That 
was a letter, I am bound to say a very proper 
letter, addressed by the Incorporated Law Society 
to this gentleman, and that letter did not reach 
his hands, as he now states in the affidavit I shall 
put in, until July 4. [Lord Coleridge, C.J.— 
What is the date of it i'l— June and July. There 
was a month's interval, and he was away in the 
country and was Ul. [Garth. — It was last year.]— 
Yea. Now the answer ia this ; " Sir, I have to 
apologise for not sooner replying to your letter 
of the 5th ultimo, but it only came to my hands 
(as also youra of the 30th) last evening. In 
reply to your inquiries, I beg to state that in the 
month of October, 1872, I was instructed by the 
executors of the late Mr. Taverner to act for 
them in obtaining probate and winding-up the 
estate. On the death of the testator, Mr. and Mrs. 
Child being quite withoat funds, I, at their re- 
quest, advanced them a aum of .£10 to obtain, 
mourning for the funeral, and also a further sum 
of i;25 for other purposes. Mr. Child some time 
afterwards asked that I should procure him a 
loan of w£250 on property devised to his wife by 
Mr. Tarvener for the purpose of paying succession 
duty, debts, and other requirements. I accord- 
ingly applied to a client, who made the necessaiy 
advance, and on completion of the mortgage I 
handed to Mr. and Mrs. Child further sums of £50 
and .£60, the balance being retained in 
my hands for the purpose of paying the 
duties, &c. At thia period Mr. Child bad 
advised with me on the subject of differences 
which had arisen between hia wife and Mr. Stephen 
Taverner, her brother, who took a life interest in 
property immediately adjoining Mr. Child's resi- 
dence, and many attendances were had by me on 
them and the executors with a view to an amicable 
settlement. A specific appointment was made for 
the executors to meet the parties, bntto my great 
surprise Mr. and Mrs. Child did not attend, and 
from that time they (the Childs) ceased to consult 
me, and instructed another solicitor to act on 
their behalf without assigning any cause what- 
ever. I have not been able to complete and carry 
in the executora' aoconnta to the Inland Revenue, 
as I have only been furnished with them a fort- 
night ago, and during my absence in the country 
they are now being prepared , and in the course of 
a few days will be lodged at the Stamp Office and 
the dutiea paid, and whatever balance may be due 
to Mr. Child it will be immediately handed over, 
less my claim against him, but the sncoeaaion 
duty and other claims will, I think, absorb the 
balance. With this explanation I leave the matter 
in your hands, and cannot help thinking the 
society might have spared my trouble in such a 
matter." That ia the aubstance of the case u 
made out on the part of the Law Society in this 
matter, and I will read to the court a short affi- 
davit. [Lord Coleridge, C.J.— What does he 
say as to the representation that they were liable 
to certain charges.] He says on that point he 
waa under the belief that it was necessary. He 
had a limited practice in the Probate Court. [Lord 
Coleridge, C.J. — He had ceased to be under th»t 
belief in July, 1873.] The truth ia, since th»t 
time he has been suffering from ill-health, and hM 
not had the means. Upon that I shall have to 
say a word on his behalf, but perhaps I may read 
the affidavit on his behalf that seta out the cir- 
cumstances. Ho says, " I have read the affidavits 
filed in support of this rule. The statemento 
therein contained as to the receipt by me of *j^ 
on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Child is true. Tie 
amount was advanced to provide for paymente « 
legal charges then being incurred on behalf ol 
Mr. and Mrs. Child. Not having had much pnc- 
tice in the Court of Probate, I was under an im- 
preasion when the mortgi^e referred to in t^® ~^ 
davit of George James Child was effected, tMJ 
succeasion duty to the amount of .£^0 or Aiw 
would be payable by the said Mrs. Child. Tn»t 
the said Mr. and Mrs. Child also required peoo. 
niary assistance, and at their request *<^'?^5 
were made to them by me to the amount of .w^ 
or thereabouts. I did not consider that 


amount obtained npon mortgage would be mo 
than would be required after payment of ™-l'/'^»],' 
charges, and expenses. I have been out of °^.j, 
for a long period, and my business has ^"f^'wj. 
consequence. I was unable to co^P^^Hir^j «nd 

neaa entruated to me by Mr. and Sirs. *^''" «jj 
to make up the aocouuta in reference to the "^^y^ 
plained of therein. I did not receive the lewj^ 
1 the seoretaiT of the Incorporated i* 


jigitizsAy Google ^M 

Nov. 21, 1874.] 



Society until the 4th July, when I wrote the letter 
of whioh the following i3 a copy." That ia the 
one I bare alreaiiy read to the court. Ho says in 
it this, that ho had no intention to defrand these 
parties, and if this honourable court would en- 
large the rule, he will make out the account and 
hand over the balance. I admit the matter has 
been put before the court with the utmost fair- 
naw, as it appears to me, and what I impress upon 
the court is this, — whether or no his ignorance as 
an attorney ia to be excused is [one thing, but if 
he was under a genuine misapprehension as to 
what the costs would be, that would materially 
excuse him from the imputation which has been 
virtually made against him. [Lord Colkbidqe, 
C. J. — What has become of the money r] He is 
at present in circumstances not to enable him to 
retom the money. [Lord Coleridge, 0. J. — 
What did he do with it ?] I should presume it 
went in the ordinary way of his aoeonnts. [Lord 
CoLERiDOE, 0. J.— That ia, he misappropriated it.] 
Your Lordship sees he was entrusted with the 
money. It is not pretended he kept the money in 
»n improper sense. [Lord Coleeidge, C. J. — 
They were ear-marked and entrusted to him for 
a specific pnrpose.l They were obtained from 
hia clients as the mortgagee. [Lord Colekidok, 
C. J. — They wore as much the property of Mr. 
and Mrs. Child, as the money in your pocket was 
yours.] No doubt, whatever the balance was, 
the money ought to have been handed over. At 
the same time, the money did remain in his hands 
until the whole transaction was completed, and it 
was not until the time that the mortgage was 
oomplcted, that he was bonnd to pay over the 
whole amount. [Ijord Coleeidoe, C. J.— ^50 he 
paid over, and he advanced sums amounting to 
je35 more; that was .£85 out of ,£250. What 
does he suggest has become of the rest f] What 
he really says is this — he said in his letter to the 
the Incorporated Law Society, that he thought 
the disbursements would absorb the balance. 
[Lord CoLERiDOE, C. J.— He must have soon 
fonnd out that they did not.] Ho says he has 
not able to comi>lete the accounts in consequence 
of ill-health. [Lord Coleridge, C. J.— Does he 
anggest anywhere the account is anything like 
JBZoO.] I do not say that, my Lord, but he says 
*' I hare been out of health for a long period, and 
my bni^iness has suffered in consequence. I was 
unable to complete the business entrusted to me 
by Mr. and Mrs. Child, and to make up the 
aoooants in reference to the matter complained 
of herein." And in the last paragraph he says 
he should be able, if thu court will kindly enlarge 
the rule for a short period, to make out the 
aoconnt and hand over the balance. What I 
venture to urge is this, that at the lime it was 
not like, there being a duty to hand over the 
fipecifio snm, but the principal sum upon the 
mortgs^ was left in his hands to disburse what- 
over was necessary, and if he was under a 
misapprehension as to the amount of the disburse- 
ment, though that would not excuse his 
ignorance, it would show he had no improper 
motive. [Grove, J. — What is the difficulty of 
his accounting ? According to his account, he 
has paid certain debts which he considers Mrs. 
Child is liable for. He has received a gross 
amount of ,£250 on the one side, and there are 
those payments on the other. It is clear it might 
be done in five minutes.] I suppose probate 
duties are not of a simple character. [Grove, J. 
— It is his own cheque. Lord Coleridge, C. J. 
— Aa I understand, it is an unopposed probate. 
KiATiNO, J. — The probate is in a certain form] 
I presume so. [Lord Coleeidoe, C. J. — There is 
no very great complication about it.] He does not 
suggest that ; he does not suggest that he could 
not Imve made out the account, if it had not been 
for.his great embarrassments at the time, and his 
absence in the country. He was away for a con- 
siderablo period, and there is no doubt his affairs 
got into great complication. [Lord Coleridge, 
C. J. — If the substance of your defence is, that 
having jglTO to account for, he has put it in hia 

SQoket, and there it is, that is one thing, but I 
Q not see anything else. Here is £26(1 received 
npon the one side ; he gives over JCM and ^35 
more, and he says at that time he thought he 
should have to make other disbursements 
which it now tnms out he has not had to 
make. All he has to do, is to conduct an 
unopposed probate and administration suit in the 
common form. He does not suggest how much 
that leaves in his hands. | I think it appears up 
to this time the account has not been stated, and 
I am not in a position to inform the court what 
the state of the account is. [Lord Coleridge, 
C. J. — But he is.] All I say is, that I presume 
there would be a balance, but for the reasons that 
appear npon the affidavits. I trust the court may 
tnmk it might bo a matter in the interest of those 
parties themselves in one point of view, and por- 
naps not acting too severely in this matter, if it 
remained over until next term. I believe there 
will be all proper reparation made. [Grove, J. 
—Is there any allegation beyond hia own state- 
ment of hia state of health r] No, my lord, but 

it was from the first always said he waS ill, and 
upon that there is no question of doubt. [Lord 
Coleridge, C. J. — A man may be ill, and still 
capable of stating a very small matter of account.] 
Of course ; I cannot conceal from myself that it 
would be much more desirable ho should. [Lord 
Coleridge, C. J. — It is not merely the retention 
of the money, but the retaining of the money by 
a statement it is impossible the court cannot see 
is untrue.] As it turns out, he did not require 
all those moneys for the purpose of disburse- 
ments, but it is clear he required money to enable 
him to disburse, and the only point is, whether 
he had misapprehensions as to the amount ; and 
one thing is clear, that at no time could he have 
deluded the parties, because he must have ren- 
dered an account ; he could not have practised a 
perpetual fraud. [Lord Coleridge, C.J. — That 
is the case in almost all frauds, that sooner or 
later they must be detected.] I do not think that 
the circumstances of this case show that he had 
the desire of appropriating the money to himself 
after making the disbursements, but I feel there 
haa been considerable time during whioh he 
could have made and completed the account. 
Upon that point, I say that having got his affairs 
into a state of embarrassment, the court will look 
npon that with as much leniency as possible, to 
enable him to do that which he tells the court he 
will do without any delay whatever — that is, ren- 
der an account and render to the parties all the 
reparation that is duo to them. I would suggest 
respectfully to the court, that if the matter was 
allowed by the court to remain until the beginning 
of next term, I think the court would then, if the 
matter was mentioned to them, bo of opinion that 
his conduct afterwards was that which showed he 
had a genuine regret for the delay that had taken 
place, and that he had since manifested every 
wish to do his duty. I hope that view will pre- 
vail, because I do not think, at the time the mat. 
tor began, he had a wrongiul motive, and I do not 
suppose that anyone regretted more than he the 
delay that has arisen. I do not know that there 
is any other topic I can urge on his behalf, but I 
do venture again to make that suggestion to your 
Lordships, that the matter should be allowed to 
remain over till next term, when he would pro- 
bably appear before you in a far better position 
than he dose at present. 

Oarth : — On the part of the Law Society I do 
not wish to enter into any question of rapara- 
tion to Mr. and Mrs. Child ; that is not tho object 
with which the Law Society brings tho case into 
court. Tho object is to see that tho misconduct 
is brought before the court and properly dealt 
with, it does not rest with Mr. and Mrs. Child. 
At the same time, if your Lordship thinks by 
postponing it until next term you will be in a 
better position to judge of the sort of punish- 
ment you should inflict, I should raise no 
objection. I should wish your Lordships to 
understand what the state of things was at 
the time I made this application. In the first 
place, Mr. and Mrs. CSild were only entitled 
to some real property under the will. Mrs. Child, 
being the daughter of the testator, was entitled to 
property that is said to bo worth ^£2000. The 
executors for whom this gentleman acted, of 
course, had to pay the probate duty and every- 
thing else connected with the administration. 
All Mr. Child had to pay was succession duty, 
and Mrs. Child was not answerable prima fade 
for the debts, or probate duty, or succession duty. 
He, under these circnmstances, acting for the 
executors, comes to Mr. Child and informs him 
that he is liable to pay one-third of tho debts of 
the testator, and the costs of the probate, and the 
administration, and aa they have no money, he 
suggests that they should mortgage this property. 
[Keatikq, J. — Was that the whole property of 
the testator ?J We do not know. It does not 
appear from the aCBdavit, nor does he explain what 
the property of the testator consisted of. AH that 
Mrs. Child knows is, that being the daughter of 
the testator, she became entitled under the will to 
tho real property ; she had no part of the personal 
property of the testator, and all she would be 
bound to pay would be the succession duty, which 
would be ^20. That being so, he represents that 
Mr. Child and his wife wore liable to pay one-third 
of the debts of tho testator and the costs of 
probate and administration, and Mr. Child says 
he requested me to furnish him with tho necessary 
funds, " Believing from the advice given to me 
by the said J. F. Holmes that I was liable to make 
the payments above mentioned, I instructed the 
said J. F. Holmes, as my solicitor, to obtain for 
me the sum of .£250 on mortgage of the house nnd 
premises, the value of which I estimated at 
.£2000. This he accordingly did, and some time 
in tho month of Nov. 1872 my said wife and 1 
cxeontcd at the otfico of the said J. F. Holmes a 
deed of mortgage of the said premises to one 
Bichardson. Thut gentleman was not present, but 
the said J. F. Holmes informed mo that he had 
given the money to him, and then gave us the sum 
of £iQ stating that he would retain the rest to 
l>ay the debts, probato duties, and expenses of 

administration. I had previously borrowed 
from him two sums of X25 and jElO, whioh I 
authorised him to retain, and he has since, namely 
on the 8th Jan. last, paid us a sum of £10, so that 
there remaina in his hands a sum of .£150, or 
thereabouts." Altogether it was X95, not ^£85, 
that was handed over to Mr. and Mrs. Child, so 
that the sum retained in tho hands of this attorney 
was .£155. Now it does not appear that the suc- 
cession duty ever has been paid out of that. It 
does not appear one way or the other. [Keating, 
J. — Ho knows it and does not state it.] That 
being so, as Mr. and Mrs. Child could not obtain 
an account from Mr. Holmes, my friend has stated 
what took place. Another attorney was employed ; 
he endeavoured to get' an account and he failed, 
and tho matter was then placed in the hands of 
Mr. Williamson, tho secretary of the Law Society, 
and then comes tho answer, and I think your Lord- 
ships should have what is stated in answer to that 
letter by Mr. Child when he road it. He says, 
" It is not true as therein stated or implied that I 
in the first instance asked the said Joseph Francis 
Holmes to procure mo the said loan for the pur. 
pose therein mentioned, or at all. The baid J. F. 
Holmes came to me and, as stated in my said affi- 
davit, informed me that I and my wife were liable 
to pay one-third of the debts of the testator and 
tho costs of probate and administration, and re- 
quested me to furnish him with funds, and when 
I told him I was not in a position to do so, 
he advised me to mortgage tho property, and said 
ho had a client who would advance the money." 
So that that was really tho fact, and from that 
time to this nothing has been done, and I have no 
reason to suppose what my learned friend haa 
stilted with regard to his client's state of 
health or means ia untrue. We had some difficulty 
in serving him ; he was not served till last Juno ; 
that is the reason it came before the court thus 
lato. At tho same time, it is not stated in the 
affidavit what became of the money. With those 
observations, I leave tho matter in tho hands of 
thocourt.— [Keating, J. — What was the date of 
the money being received by them r] — In Nov. 
1872. I do not wish to press unduly on Mr. 
Holmes. I only wish your Lordshipa should nndor- 
stand the matter. 

Murt-ay — My Lords, there ia one remark I wish 
to make aa to the succession duty which was first 
mentioned in answer to the application of the 
secretary of tho Law Society. The statement of 
Mr. Child ia, that he was induced to make the 
mortgage upon the rcproscubation that he was 
liable to pay the debts, which he was not, and 
was also liable to pay a third of the testamentary 
expenses, whioh under no circumstancea the free- 
hold estate ia liable to. We know well, under 
the atatute it ia only liable to tho debta of tho 
testator, and that statement must have been 
known to be false by the attorney when making it. 
— [Keating, J. — Does it appear what the state of 
the testator's affairs waa, whether he had personal 
property, or how he devised it ?] — It is not sug. 
gested what the amount of the debta was, or 
that the personal estate was deficient, be- 
cause, unless it was, the real estate would 
not be liable. It is not suggested that 
any suit by the creditors to make the freehold 
estate liable was ever substituted, or will be ; and 
there is no reason to that this estate will 
ever be called upon to contribute. [Keating, J. 
— In fact, the attorney here now seems to admit 
that there waa no such liability as he represented, 
but he states he waa under a misapprehension.! 
He asks the court to believe that upon a freehold 
estate worth ^2000, £90 of succession duty would 
be payable. I have taken the trouble to look at 
the tables of the Act, and found that under no 
circumstances would there be more than Xll 
payable. [Keating, J.— It is one per cent.] I 
do not know the lady's age, and the succession 
duty is regulated by the age of the aucceaaor ; 
but I have taken her age at forty-five years, with- 
out wishing to do her injustice, and taking the 
estate at the maximum of .£20110, it brings it out 
at XIO odd. [Lord Coleridge, C. J. — That is 
so, if it is a life estate ; but if it is in fee, doea 
the age affect it ?] Yes, my Lord ; in case of a 
freehold estate devised, the succession duty may 
be assessed upon the value of an annuity to a 
person taking an estate in foe, though they assess 
it always npon the residue of the life, according 
to the tables in the Act. [Grove, J.— The per- 
son who takes in succession from her would pay. 
It would be like acquiring an estatej Obviously. 
The principle ia very simple. Thoy take the 
ago of the successor with the devise for life or 
in fee, and then thoy take the value of an annuity 
upon that life, equivalent to the annual value of 
the property. [Keating, J. — This is only a 
differene* of between jElO, which you repre- 
sent, and the .£20 Mr. Garth represouta. It 
is scarcely worth tho time consumed. J Only 
this matter is material, that at the time Mr. 
Child was induced to execute tho mortgage 
there was not a penny due, because by the 
Act of Parliament the first instalment; is not due 
until the expiration of twelve months from the 

jigitized by 




[Nov. 21, 1874. 

time the penon coidm into pouefsion. [Eeat- 
I NO, J.— Yim are nuking oot that the attorney 
might bare been nnder a misapprebenaion as to 
the iitate fk facta.] My apprebeneion ia that no 
attumry oonld be nuiKT the impreeiion that the 
ectste coold be liable to JiSO. [Keatino, J.— I 
thoDght >o when Mr. Garth sat dotm.] It is not 
a qaintion of aceoant. The charge was that by 
im\)jiipi-T pretences the mortgage was execated, 
anrl with thuM remarks we lesre it in the hands 
of the coort entirely. 

[Tbbir Lurdnhips conferred.] 

Lord CoLEUiiXiC, C. J. — What was your rule, 
Mr Garth. 

OartU. — Only to answer the matters of the affi- 
davit, and the answer is made now. 

[Their Lordships a((ain con^olted.] 

Lord CoLKBiixiE, C. J.— In this cane, in our pre- 
sent imprevsiun, the etrong impresnion npon our 
minds would be to order this gentleman to be 
stmok off the rollH of this court. This person is 
clothe'l by the court with an exceptional and con- 
tidential character. It is uot the case of an ordi- 
nary tradoman or a person pursuing any of the 
ordinary armat^onii of life, and an attorney is 
clothed by the conrt with what I have already 
called an exceptional and confidential character, 
and perHons io the transaction of legal buaincas 
muMt needs employ attorneys, and the pernons 
whom they so employ are certified to them, 
OH it wvr(;, by the court us persons of honour, 
coiifl Icnce and integrity, whom they must neces- 
sarily Bay they may i-afely ( mploy in the conduct 
of their business, and taking advantage of the 
position and the character with which the conrt 
nas clothed them, this gentleman has done that 
which, but for that {loaition and character he 
oonld not have done. Man^ men take money 
from one person and spend it npon themHelvea 
diohonestly, but this person gets money from a 
client by a misrepresentation which the court 
oannot and docs not for a moment doubt he knew 
to be untruo. He obtains a considerable sum 
of money, which is in fact the money of that 
client, for the purpose, as he tells the client, of 
discharging certuin legal liabilities which he 
kni'w the client not to bo liable to, and then puts 
it into hid own p'ckct. Now for my part, and 
I believe I speak with the entire concurrence 
of my learned brethren, I think the conrt have 
scarcely been strong enough in cases of this kind 
and have scarcely dihtinguifhod with safficient 
breadth between the misconduct of the 
attorney aH an officer of the court, and the 
particular injury und fraud committed by the 
attorney upon the client, and it is a mistake to 
■appose that the attorney can purge himself of 
his misconduct in an oflicial cbarai:ter by return- 
ing to the client m'juuy which he has improperly 
obtained, and which, but for the terror of the 
court, he probably would never hnvo returned. 
The offence against the court and the injury to 
the pulilio and the Profession in the act firxt 
done, and in the misiapplication of the ofTiciul 
and confidential character, rather than in the 
lDisapi>lieation of the particular sum, be it largo, 
or be it small ; and therefore, speaking, I believe 
'with the entire concurrence of the court, under 
these oircumHtances, we should have been 
prepared to i-ay at this moment, that this 
fontleman, having got money as an attorney by 
fraudulent misreprenentutione, und having dis- 
graced the exceptional and confidential character 
'whii-h thin court clothes him with, tluK conrt 
would Htrip him of that character, as unfit any 
longer tu hold it ; but our attention has been 
drawn Tery properly by cue of the Musters to a 
case very much in its character like the present, 
and the course which we are about to take is in, 
I will not (By deference to the authority, but is 
because wo entirely follow the judgment and the 
Toasons given for that jud),'munt, as both the 
judgment and the reasonn apply to this caxo. It 
18 the case of Ka Wnyhl (12 C. H., N.S. 70.5), 
and in that case the attorney had boon called 
npon, as here, to answer the mutters of an alti- 

^.4avi^. In the opinion of the court, he did not 
luiiiwor the matters in the afiidavit satisfactorily, 
and tho court were |>repared, as tho court is pro- 
paroil here, upon their then state of mind, as wo 
arc propiiiod in our state of mind, to strike the 
^Attorniy off the rolls for not answering matters 
I in th<' ulHdavit, and tho case is u direct auth irity 
[vto show that if wo had done so at this moment, 
wo should have been acting in accordance with 
.practice and rule, but tho Cbiof Justice of the 
court in that ease drew attention to the fact 
which exists here, that the form of the rule calls 
Upon tho attorney to answer tho matter of the 
anlduvil, and did not call upon him pointedly to 
I -ahow why he should not be struck off the rolls, 
and the Chief Juntice points out that his atton- 
.tlou had uut been culled pointedly to the serious 
result tho rule might have, and the court thero- 
>foro iioremptorily eularKed tho rule to a future 
.day, intimating that if tho attorney ohoso to be 
board iiguin that day with rororunoe to that new 
TCiult, wliich they contemplated as likely to fol- 
■low from tho rule, ho may bo hoard ; and if be 

did not satisfy the ooort that their then present 
impression was incorrect, they should act 
npon it, and strike bim olf the rolls. In that case 
be was heard, and he was stmck off the rolls. I 
do not say what will b? the result of the present 
case, but we enlarge this rule peremptorily to the 
first day of next term solely npon the anthotity 
of this case, and becauM we think it a fair thing 
to draw his attention to the possible resnlt. W« 
give him an opportunity, if he thinks fit, to try 
and satisfy us that there is reason consistent with 
the principles I have laid down, that he shonld re- 
tain the character he has at present abused, and 
if he does not satisfy as upon tho first day of next 
term to that effect, he will be stmok off the rolls, 
and there mast be notice to the Law Society. 
What is the usual notice to the Law Society ? 

Garth. — What yoor Lordship baa just said is 
notice to the Law Society ; that is quite snfficient. 

U). HsmilKw jq aa r r. Birke »hwg . «na 

, ChaMsr. aollBaoc. Dec so ; W.snd 

' H, Northsate-atnsi. 


I Trsnuferred to the Oommlsaionen for tbe BedocUou of the 
NutioDsl Debt, and whica will be paid to the penona 
r««pectlTul/ wbOM nsouM are prefixed to <*ach in three 
months, a]il*«a other clalmanTAtooneraDpear.l 

Badlct (Issk). fT'mn: to BsroneM Waomui. Thame- 
p«rk. Oion. tlU Three per Oent. Aonnitles. Claimant, 
Thus. Radle;. administrator of Isaac Badlsy, deceMed. 


CoosoooR AXD Paooda Corras Coxfast (Limited).— 

Petitton for wlndiag-un to be heard Dec. 4 before V.C. H, 
FoseiaH axd Ooi^.ihi. Gas Compakv i LiaiTiD .— Peutioa 

for windiiiffuo to b^ he ird D c t before V.O. M. 
IxniAS CorrEt Ektate Compaxy 'Li«itid>.— Petition for no Ite iiesrd l;fcc. 4 before V C. H. 
Kahkrry C')rrEE Compast 'Limitedi — Poution for wind- 

ius np to be beard Dec. i before T.C. H. 

Last Dat or Psoov. 

Babros fWm.). The Groves, Kinirfiton-tipon-Hull, lawyer, 
uec. IS; Henry Cook. Bolicitor, KingHCOu-opon- HulL 
Tec. 12; V C. H. Rt twcWc o'clock. 

Baxter (Cha^.), Xeaton. Cheater, builder. Dec. 7 : Thoa. 
M. nownham, loUcitor, Birkenhead. Dec. 16; V.C. M. 
at tweW*- o'olocV. 

DiTKDAS (Chas. A. W. P.), Barton Cinrt, Kiatbary. Berka, 
Ea^i-, and 10, Nsrroar Wine-«tre"t, aud -Nelaon-atreet. 
Brtatol, »nd of Gr^en-at-eet, Bath, newaparer pro- 
prietor. Dec. :U; Domville, I,*wrence, and GrahiiDl, 
■olic tora, s, New.Bqnare. Llncoln'a-lim, London. Jan. 11 ; 
V.O M. at twelve o^clock. 

EnwAaw (Jane), Brecon, Bonth Wslea, grocer. Dec. Si; 
ijeo. J. Bploer, solicitor. 7. Q^een-atTeec-placo, Cannon- 
atreet. London. Jan. 7 : V.C. H., at twelve o'clock. 

EDWAsrift {Robertl, Breron. drai>er. IK*c. 21; G. Spic^r, 
solicitor. 7, Qaeen-fttrnet. Cannon-atrect, London. Jan. 
7 ; V.O. H., at twelve o'clock. 

EtLia (Tho*.), Devon Lodse, Victoria-road, Clnsham 
Commoo. Rarrer, gentleman. Doc. 11); Thoa. Bnddelev, 
jnn., aol^eitor. 4fS, Leman-atrect, Goodinan'a.fields, Mid- 
dleaex. Jan. 12; V.C. M.. at twelve o'clock. 

FAKantwE (Ctaaa. 8. F.!, f rm. riy of Fawlev. Backs, after- 
word* of Souihampton, an<l late of Baaaet Htuk'h, South- 
ampton, clerk. Dec. 12; E. E. WhiUker, aoUcltor, 12, 
I.lninlu'F-lnn-flelda, London. Deo. lU; V.O. H., at tvelve 

FlHBER ( Wm. O.), 215, Oiford.atreet, Middlesex, china and 
trluaa dealer. Nov. 80; J. T. Davie*, aolieitor, S\ Moor- 
its'e-'treot, London, Dec. 11; V. C. H. at Twelve 

GtTKRaA, otherwlae Bbbslla pa Fostcra ^JoaoEvan^e- 
liata), 70, BKlaire Park Gardena. Hanip-t..ai1, MiddlejifX ; 
and of It, Amerlca-aqnare, Minorie«. Loi.d<^n. mercbint, 
Jan. 11; Walker and Co., aolidtora, fi, Souibamnton- 
atreet, Bloomaburj, London. Jiox 2Ii; V. C. H. at 
IVelve o clock 

Bawerioo (Jane), Nae'a Head Inn. Wrthbam. Crofs- 
thwalte. Camberland, w dow. Dec. »1 ; KobHrn rtroatch, 
aollcltor, Kcawick. Jan. It. V.C. H.. at twelve o'clock. 

jACKaos or Pavieb (John Jackson) Hammrrwick. 8t»f- 
f ord. Dec. 5 ; Arthur Unmea, solicitor. Lichfield, Dec. U, 
V C. M.. at twelve o'clock. 

Lb M*hcha\-t (Sir John G.), RO, Rt. Gconfe'a-afiuiro. 
Pimli™, Mirtdleacx. Dec. 7 ; H. K. Freshlieltl, aolicitor, 
i. Bank-bmldrnga. London, Dec. U. V.C. M., at twelve 

LEWia (Edward), formerly of 75. Chiewoll atroet, Finsbnry, 
late of )M, Worahlp-atreot. Fin-bary, Mi Mleex. and 3, 
Slonry-Tlllaa. Park-road, Tcddmifton. Middlesex, litho. 
grapher. Dec. IH; .loa. Perry, aolicitor, i GuiUlhall- 
cbambrra, Bastngball.atreet, London. Jan. 8; M. It., at 

LoP^H. otherwiae Oohcalvbs fJoao Baptiata), Bio de 

Janeiro, Brnz'l. and of tho Villa de Conde. t'olugal, 

merchant. Marfh^l; Jamea R. Ujiton. aolicitor. 20. 

Au*t)nfriar8, London. March 13 ; M. R., at twelve 

MiDULEBBooK 'Tho«.1. Old Swan Inn, York. innk<»eper and 

farmer. Dec. 4: R Green «ood. aolicitor, tikipton. Dec. 

12: V.C. M., at twelve o'cock. 
NusN (Johni, ^, Kuaton-Btiuaro. and T^mba Conduit- 

fftreot, Middleaex. Dec. 9 : John P. Bird, aolicitor, 10, 

nreat Jamoa-atreet. Bo'iford-row, London. Deo. 16; 

V.C. M., at twelve o'l lock. 
Wii.i.iAMa (Roberti. Bryn. LlnnfalrpwUirwynyTll, Angleoa 

trenti*^man. Deo. &: Wm. lioea, BOlioitor, Wigan. Doc. 

21 ; V.C. M„ at twelve o'clock. 

CEEDITOBS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35. 

Abbott ( Kmn M.), late of Tornuov, formerly a milliner 

and dreaamaker, but latterly out tif buaineaa. Dec. 2o ; 

W. andC. Kitvon. aolicitorc, Tortjuay. 
Allen (Mary A. ), Dorrinuton, near Bhrewabnry. Dec. .11 ; 

H. T. and Q. Waco, 8ohcitor«, Coil-ae-hill, Shrewsbury 
Ahoel (Harah L.)« 71, Goldhawk.roud. Shephcrd'a buah, 

Middleaex, Dec 20; Lewinaiid Co., aolicitora, 32, bonth- 

ampton-BTreet. Strand. I.undnn. 
Bates (Ann), t»^ anlf hurst, Kent, widow. Dec. 14; Keen 

and Rogera. aolioitora, 21, Knightxi'lor.street, Doctora'- 

ofimmona, Londoj. 
BATEa(.Iohn). f .rmerlvof c. Ditchlini-terrace, and late of 

It), Norfolk-rood, both in Brighton, gontk-mon. H'eb. 1 ; 

Clarke aud Hewlett, 80licit*ira, «. Ship-strcct, BriKhtou. 
Blackhubn (Jo li), 2 I. hitfh Holb ni, Mdilea x . oaier 

an I • u^ntcer. Dec. 15; Pattiaou and Co., aoiidtxira, 50, 

Lombard-f treet. London, 
BLANc-Lav (He rietta). Budle'gh Saltcrton. Devcn. Dec. 

20; I.pwln and Co., ao icitora, hi, fioutLom^tou-stre t, 

Htrand. London. 
Bhoulev (John), Derby, genikman. De} SI; W, and 

W, U. WhUlun and Cooler, aoll.iton. Derby. 

BaoariEU) (Ja 
of Neargata-Btxeet, 
U T. Broam and Oocera. ■ 

Bcaar a'imoD <, Start, naar Defiles, WUti,jreaman. Dae. 

31 ; Meek, Johnaon. and Loth, oolieitoms. DeriMS. 
Chaowick (Tbonus:. Borr. Laoaasier. eootnetor. Feb. 

1 ; P. and J. Watajn, sohciton. », Broad-atreeC, Boij. 

CoHU ;Ls*is, O.), a, Briitol-nad, Biriaingba'B, ma^ 

chant. D «. !1 : W, H. UrilBn. solicitaT, IS, BtBUntf 

hiU, Birmmgham. „ . _ 

Cole (Bot>en]. Holybonra • lodge, Boatbampton. Ea<t 

Dec K4 ; C. and Vf. TiiauneT, Bolicitora. Alton. 
Coos (Jane), 17, Btrd-m-BiiBb.road, Peckham. Bimey, 
widow. Dec. 24 ; Ingle, Cooper, and Ho lm es. ooUcitail. 
to. Ttina<lnasdl».au«el, LonOun. .^ , , . _. 
CovasrsT (TnoB.), formerly of Eaatcbiirch,il«i« of ubeipsr, 
Kinc laie of Qneenaboroogb. lale of Sbeppy, fsn&« and 
graiier. Jan. 1 ; Jackson and Co.. scUcitora. 12, Bsiaxa 
B'.rcet, StraLd. London. 

DALBTHrLX (Donald). M.P.. Thorpe Lodge. Thocpe, asar 
Norwxh. Eaq. Jan. 1; Birebam and LXt.. solwilO fc «^ 
PariiameLt-Btraet, Westminster, London. . „ . _. 

DAvnMOB (lluM.), 14, St. Ueocgea-plaee. Hyde Psik. Wd* 
dlSHZ, gantlsman. Dec si; Capron.and Co.. to lirlMw^ 
Bavile-plaoe, Condoit-street, Lonooa. 

Datib (bamuel), late of 7. King-Btreet, Ponjnan-sqastia 
Middlesex. Oairrinan. and tormeily o< Bnwd-cnirU 
Drun-lone, Uidduaei. aaleoman. Dec. XI ; r. Bta, 
solicitor, a. Rkinner's-place, blae-lane, Qneen VictoxaK 
street. London. . „ ., 

Dell ( Thoa. i, a, Park.teiroce. Bniton-road, Snrrey. gentle. 
Tn»w Dec. IJ ; I'boa. Wliite and SonA, aoUciuns. lU 
Bedford. rof, ixinOun. „, , « ,_ 

Dutt tElixabetb), 4. Dorset-road. Now Windsor. Berkl. 
DecS-i; Wouliacou and Loonaid. aoUcituis. bl, Gcaea- 
cbnrohatreet, Loudou. tx ,= • 

Dowja I Richard i, Bhafteabnry, builder. Dec. 18; A. 
Dipglea solicitor, Hibemia Ctxombera, Lonaoa-bnage, 
Bouinwark. London. Jon. S : M. B.. at twelve o clock. 

DaAVSos (Geo.), Jan., IS. Brower-atieet. Golden-aansljk 
Middlesex, ana £1. Hyde Park-place, Middlesex, golda g 
smith and jeweller. Dec. SI ; Ford and Lk>yd. aoUouau 
I, moomBbury-a<iaare, Loudon. " 

Ebbs (Somuel', 2, Reigate-villaa, Sutton. Bnrrey. aN. 
Dec. l3 ; G. liobins aolicitor, 3, Guildhall Chambel^ 14 
BaainKhall.htreet, London. 

BBOsa iCuoa. H.j, IS, Weatboume-terraoe, Hyde Put. 
Miadleaix, Es<i. Feb. 10; Upton and Co.. soUciton,* 
Aiu)ii.friara, London. . „ . . 

Fiaass (Wm.), 51. Mate Pond, Southwark, Surrey, and ol 
ItM). New Keut-rua^ . leather merunoni. Deo. Hi a. Joav. _ 
dam, solicicoT, to, Ludgate-bill. ix>i,don. 

Foubes (Alexander), 12, Moutoga-place. Montagn-sg 
Midule,ex, Jian. Doc. 10; A. F. and R. W. Tr 
Bolicitora, &, Linx>ln'B-inn-fieldB, Loudon. (Wm. R.) OUi sford Briggs, Lincoln, 
Jan. 15; H. K. Webb, BOiicitor. bt. Fel^r'a.cna 
SUver-atre t. Lino In. „ ^ 

Ghast ;Caruliue), 17, Chippenham-fcrrace, Horrow-rosJ, 
Midolea,;!, widow. Dec. i5. Sidney SmitJi and Hon. aoa. 
citora, 1, b'urnival'ii.iuu, Hulbom. London. 

Gbecn (Matibew), Kimoerlei-, Norlulk, farmer. Jan. 1} 
Whitea, Henanl, and Pomeroy, aollcitora, Wymoudhsia, 

Hall (John B.), The Orange, Sutton. Surrey, Eaq. Dm. 
12; U. E Brown, aolicitor, 11, PaU Mall Eos , LuudOD. 

Haxley (Chos. A.), Wendover, Buoka, gentleman, 
15, Wm. U.Hayoock, bohcicor, 4. Colieffo nUl. Loo* 

Haiu>v (llarcourt Wm.), formerly of Shanghai, 
altcrwards of 27, Marme-parade, Dover, and late <W 
Marlow, Uucta, merchant. March 15; Uresory ' 
olUIeB and Co.. holicilora, 1, Beaford-row, London. 

BBSI.BAW iCIa.isaa,, 2, lue Pavement, Clapuam, Sninb 
spluater. Uec. 21; J. Uopgood. BoUcitor, 17a, Whitehall- 
pUce, l,oudou, S. W. „ « 

Jousao-v iJohu G. ). Norwich, snrgeon. Jan. 13; H. Haa. 
feed. aoUcltor, Precincts ol the Cathedral Cnurca. ftw. 

LEWia'John), Summer Hill villaB, laoa-terrace, MainlMi 
Christchurch. Monmouih. gentleman. Dec. b; i,Tm 
Davieii, act citjr, 3s. Moorgate-atreec, London. 

Matbeu 'i'. S.I, Longrldge House, .'^orthamNfr 
land and lletch Grove, Newcastle-npon- I'yne, E-.q, Jan. 
30; U. K. Ueea, eolidtor, S), Pilgrimstreet. AewosSt» 

MATrutwa i'joa. P.), Honaham Tye Farm, Matohlai; 

Kaa'-x, tiaq. Jan. 1; Aldrloge and Thorn, aolicitora, 31* 

B«Hord-row, MiduUaex. 
Mi.vAKi Eiiziibetc, Ui, Cambridge street, Hyde card 

jMiddlesix, widow, Dec. ti ; Johnson and jBClBOa» 

aoUultora. iio, ch^ucery.Une, London. 
MosES Juhu), 212, Westnale-road and Mosley.atreet, Nw- 

coatle-npon-Tyne, huLU ana wooilen draper. Jan. Sit 

J. G. brown, bolicllor, 5, Aloaloy.Btrect, Newcoatle-apoa* 

MuuuiMAK (Jo«), Ayleabnry, hairdresser and perfmoBi 
Jan S : Tindal and Uaynea, Bolioitora, Aii^abur». 

Neill (Wm. I, Bold, Laucaster engineer and mUlwlOT}. 
Deo. 13; Beuley and .Oppenheim, .aolitilora. li, a»l» 
Bha*-»treet, 8t Helen's, Laucoater. „ ^ „, . . 

Neville (Benjamin), Widenhall. btaltord, file mannno- 
tur..r. Nov. 3J ; J . Chirk, solicitor, 4, New-roou, WiUea- 

NowisoTOX (Bev. Philip P.), Wilmington, near DarCford. 
Kent. Dec. 3ti ; Boaworth and Browu, bolicltor.*. WeateN 
bam, Kent. „ 

NoEEs iOeo ), Chelmsford, Essex, butcher. Dec. a; 
Wm. J. Child, aolicitor, 7, south-aijuare, Graya-um, 
London. Jan. 8; V.C. H., at twelve o'clock. ,, „ ^ 

Pathick (Jaa.), Shears lun. NoroliKote, WakeHeld. Yorl. 
mnkeeptr. Dec. 20 ; C. H. Simpaon, aolicitor. it, aeo* 
ncdy- street, Muncoester. „ ,, 

Powell (Frederick U.l, Blundell Saod*, Great Cro»M,l 
4, Woier-atieet, Liverpool, binpowner. Dej. 11; T. I 
'r. Martiu, solicitors, W, Castle.f-treet, Liverpool. 

Bansos (John!, Kingstou-upou-Hull, gentleman. FeMI 
Gale auu Miudlcmua, aoiicitora, 11, Parluanent.sErMfa 

BoBEu'ra (Tho«. H.), 21 (formerly 100), Orcai Titchfldil. 
street. Portland. place, Midilte.*ex, job master. UeclJ 
DliOuaud CJt solicituris, 10, Bedluid row, London. 

BctTON (Anna K.I, Lower Fic»«ihiiim-»ireei, Ueblil. 
widow, Dec. 31 ; Haliowea aud Hamilton, aolicitora, 34, 
Weatland-row, Dubim. . 

BcuLLv (Susanna), the Grove, Boltona, South Kenamitoii, 
Middleaex, and 13. Merrion-aquare, Dublm, widow. 
Dec. IS ; Norria aud Soua, aollcitora, 2, BeJtord-ro». 
London. „ ., „ 

Slates (Norman), Croaton, near Preston, genUcmao. 
Deo. 15 ; Potiiaou, Wigg, and Co., EOlicitiira, 60, LombBTO- 
Btreet. London. , . , 

SaaAKtii (Maiioj, late of Florence. Italy, and formerly oil. 
Albion-etreet, Hyde Park, Middlesex, widow. Jan. i i 
Bhaen, Ro.cje, and Masaey. soliciturs. 8, Bedford-low. 

TB-.u.vEv'(John), Kingaton-npon-Hall. Jan. 1; John Jos. 

Thomey, tuiicltor, 10, Pa^Uamen^atree.. Hoiu 
TiTE (Sir Wiu.i, M.P.. 42, Loa-ndea-aquare, Miadleisi. 

Jan. 1; Bircham and vo., aoUoitora, 4<i, ParUamsBt. 

street, Weatminaier, London. .> . ai. 

Wale (Mary H.), Worksop, Notts, spinster. Deo. a. 

Hodding and Becvor. aollcitora. Work -op. ^ 

Whistleb (Edward) 11, Strand, Middlesex, and PesOomB 

L.)di(;, Clapham Park, Surrey, Bilveramith ana P*™" 

broker. Jan. lO; Wnites and Co., solicitota. Si, Baoi»" 

row, Cannon-BUeat, London. 

r, sad 

)igitized by 


Nov. 21, 1874.J 



Wii*>?r (Rom), 5. KennnfftOD- place, Bath, ppinster. Deo. 

U: Pattison and Co., »olicitjr. :y>, LjLubird- street, 

VouiALD (John). Cawoa<I, York, merchant. Deo. SI ; 

WeidAll and Park, HoUjitors. Seiby. 




7Vr»f/a|r, A'or. 17. 

Br MeMT». E. and H. Lumlfy. at the Mart. 

Bedfordshire. liUton.— The Sugar Loar public- house, free- 

hoW-»nld for JElHoH. 
Cromwell-r ad.— A nlot of land— sold for £tfiO. 
Bt Mes^rtt. Habor, Vaui;uan. and Jxnkin.^un, at the Mart. 
W«Btb inme-p»rk.— No. sa, Cjrn«all-road, ttnu 85 y-a»B— 

iold for £i>^>. 
Greenwich.— No. iU Oeonre-ttrwjt. freehold— sold for £1'0. 
Ije*i»haui.— No. is Horton-strcet, term Si years— sold for 

kVb. tt, Jerrard- street, term 88 years— Fold for £190. 

^Sew rrxws.- Freehold croand rent of HU per auuttm— sold 

Deptfotd —Freehold gronnd-rent of £1 \Ss. (kl. per annum 

—•old for *l"j. 
FMehold rouC4l of £,v\ per annum— gold for £\iVi. 
Both«rhithe.~A. rental of £00 per annum, term 77 years— 
•old for £1100. 


The following gentlemen were this week called to 

By the Honourable Society of Lincoln's Inn. — 
Suiel Kobcrt Fearon, Esq., M.A., Oiford ; 
DoaglaH Close Richmond, Esq., M.A., Cambridge ; 
ThoDua Miildlotou RoRers, E.sq., B.A., Oxford ; 
John Baddeley Wood, E-q., B.A., Oiford ; Henry 
Bae, Esq., B.A. and, Cambridge; Henry 
Edward Hirst, Esq., M.A. and B.C.L., Oxford ; 
Charles Benjamin Bright Moclareu, Esq., M.A., 
Edinburgh ; William Webb Spencer FoUet, Esq., 
B.A., Cambridge ; Hngh Heugh Kiach, Esq., 
Magdalen College, Oxford ; William Henry Gover, 
Eaq., LL.B., University of London; William 
Uichael Spence, Esq., M.A., Cambridge, Fellow 
of Pembroke Colltge ; Edward John Payne, Esq., 
M.A. Oxford, Fellow of University College ; John 
HaviUnd, Esq., M. A., Cambridge ; Reginald John 
Lake, Esq., B.A., Oxford ; Charles James Tcnnant 
Banlop, Esq., M.A., Oxford ; Francis Henry Pitt- 
Taylor, Esq., B.A., Cambridge; Robert Edward 
Bidlett Hult, Esq. ; Edward Fortcscue Torriano, 
Esq. : Madgwick George Davidson, Esq., M.A., 
Oxford; and AViUiam John Tanner, Esq., B.A., 

By the Hon. Society of the Inner Temple. — 
Oliver Alexander Ainslie, Esq., London ; Charles 
Henry Walton, Esq., Oxford; Herbert Gary 
Gaorge Batten. Esq., B.A. Cambridge ; Charles 
Awdry, Esq., M.A., Oiford; Ernest Frederic SiU 
TUter, Esq., Oxford ; John Hoywood Johnstone. 
Eaq., B.A , Cambridge ; Francis Medland Phillips, 
Esq., .Associate of King's College ; Robert Chcllas 
Graham, E..4<1., B.A., Cambridge ; Heighway Jones, 
Esq., jnn., LL.B., Cambridge: Edward Boycott 
Jenkins, Esq., B.A., Oxford ; Rudolph Eyre Mel- 
sheimer, Esq., B.A., Cambridge ; William Pick- 
ford, E'q., B.A., Oxford ; Coeil Francis Parr, 
[Esq., Oxford ; Charlus Tyrrell Giles, Esq., B.A., 
bmbridge ; Goodwin Yonng, Escj., B.A., Cam- 
idge ; Arthur William Roberts, Esq., B.A., 
(ford; Arratoon Carapiet, Esq., B.A., Cam- 
bridge ; John Alexander Apcar, Esq. ; William 
|£dward Norris, Esq. ; David Jardine Jardine, 
iq., B.A., Cambridge; William Frederick Al- 

JhoDse Archibald, Esq., M.A., Oxford ; Henry 
ohn Church, Esq. ; Thomas Latham, Esq., B.A., 
Cambridpe ; Cecil Isaacson, Esq., B.A., Cam- 
1- ■ '' Iward Marjoribanks, Esq. ; John Fre- 
, Esq., B A., Oxford ; Charlea Edward 
. ; and James Bipg Porter, E.=q. 
By th" Hon. Society of the Middle Temple.— 
Eobert William Taylor, Esq., University of Lon- 
don, B.A., holder of the First Studentship 
from the Council of Legal Education in May 
1874 ; John Fletcher Monlton, Esq., of Christ's 
ColU'ge, Cambridge, Follow and Lecturer ; Arnold 
Jeffries Cleaver, Esq. ; Stephen Herbert Gatty, 
p£>q, of New College, Oxford ; .lohn Temple 
' ihwell Cooke, Esq. ; Robert William Broom. 
Id, Esq., ; Walter Annie Attcnborongh, Esq., 
of "Trinity College, Cambridge, B.A. ; George 
Hamphreys, Esq., of Queen's University, Dub- 
liUj B.A.; William .Tames Howard, Esq., of 
[J^inity College, Dublin, B.A. ; Qeorge Osmond 
iby, E-'q. ; Charles William BuUer, Esq., 
"■ Soul's College, Oiford, B.A. ; Wm. 
Esq., of Trinity Hall, Cambridge, B.A. : 
avid Lionel Salomons, of Cains College, 
Camlri.i^re, B.A. ; Frank Normandy, Esq. ; Thos. 
Alfred .'-ipalding, Esq. ; Henry Boyes Mngllston, 
Eeq. : John Gerard Lairg, Esq.. of Clare College, 
Caml.ri'ke, B.A., and London University ; Chas. 
^^ Henry Marriott Wharton, Esq. ; David Alfred 
^K Aiid, Esq , of St. Mary Hall, Oxford ; and Yves 
^^1 Kerre Autoine Jollivot, Esq. 
^^B By the lion. Society of Gray's Inn. — Francis 
^^BThifUps, of 'M, Gloucester-orescent, Hyde Park, 
^^FKiddlesex, the only surviving son of the late 
' <:hu\ea Henry Phillips, F.R.C.S., of C, Trafalgar, 
iqaare, Brompton, in the said county. 


Memorandum op Association — Ultka 
ViKES — Ratification or Contkact — Assent 
oy Shareholders— Power of those present 
AT Mektino to bind Absentees. — The defen- 
dants are a limited company, incorporated under 
the Companies' Act 18G2, their objects as stated 
by their memorandum of association being, '* to 
make or soil, or lend on hire, railway carriages 
and waggons, and all kinds of railway plant, tit- 
tings, machinery, and rolling stock ; to carry on 
the business of mechanical engineers and general 
contractors ; to purchase, lease, work, and sell 
mines, minerals, land, and buildings ; to purchase 
and sell, as merchants, timber, ooals, metals, or 
other materials, and to buy and sell any such 
materials on commission, or as agents ;" the 4th 
of their articles providing, that " an extension of 
the company's business beyond, or for other than 
the objects or purposes expressed or implied in 
the memorandum of association, shall take place 
only in pursuance of a special resolution." In 
Jannary ISSo the directors of the company, 
by their acting director, J.A., contracted with 
parties in Belgium, to whom the Belgian Govern- 
ment had granted a conoespion for the construc- 
tion of a lino of railway in that country, for the 
purchase by the company of that concession ; and 
also with the plaintiff to employ him in the con- 
strnction of the lino, through the medium of a 
sociOte anonyme to be constituted by the company 
in Brussels, and to pay certain sums of money 
into the treasury of the'socidte for furnishing the 
plaintiff with funds for carrying out his contract 
for constructing the line. The stipulated deposit 
was paid to the concessionaires out of the com- 
pany's funds ; and a report, by J. A., of what had 
been done, was approved at a hoard meeting of 
the company, on the 8th Feb. 1800, and the con- 
tract with the plaintiff was ordered to be regis- 
tered. Further contracts between the same 
parties, modifying the previous ones, were en- 
tered into in Oct. 18C5, and the plaintiff proceeded 
with the constrnotion of the lino ; and np to May 
1866 the specified payments were made by the com- 
pany into the treasury of the Bociet<5 anonyme. 
The directors, in Oct. 1865, being advised that the 
contracts were ultra vires, projected a company 
for taking them over; and at a general meeting 
of the defendant cnrapany, on the 5th Deo. 18iJ5, a 
balance sheet showing advances made on account 
of these contracts was presented, and objected to, 
but on the chairman's assurance that that item 
would not appear again, as it would be taken 
over by the projected company, the accounts were 
approved and adopted. On the 20th Deo. 1866, 
at an extraordinary general meeting of the defen- 
dant company, a committee was appointed to 
inquire into and report upon tho company's affairs, 
and at an extraordinary meeting on the Ist May 
1867, the ci>mmitteo reported that the Belgian 
contracts wore tiltra vires, and the shareholders 
not bound by them, but the directors were liable 
to replace tho expended money, and recommended 
an amicable settlement. Thereupon a committee 
was appointed, and at an annual meeting on tho 
14th May 1867 (convened by circular, stating one 
of the objects of che meeting to be " to receive, 
consider, and adopt any report to be made by snoh 
committee," and at which meeting the Belgian 
advances appeared again in the balance sheet in 
the same form as before), a resolution was passed 
embodying the recommendation of tho committee 
that certain persons (directors of the defendant 
company), should " purchase " from the company 
the Belgian contracts, the company to take pro- 
cecdings for enforcing them in the company's 
name at the expense of and on an indemnity by 
the purchasers, and not to be precluded from 
maintaining that the contracts wore ujfra vires, 
and not binding on the company ; and subject 
thereto, the balance sheet to 30th Sept. 1866, was 
approved. On the 24th Deo. 1867, at another 
annual meeting, a contract in the form of an in- 
denture, carrying into effect tho resolution of the 
lith May 18C7 (and which contract and resolution 
were stated in the circular convening tho meet- 
ing), was approved, and tho company's seal 
afUied thereto, and the balance sheet to 30th 
Sept. 1867, was adopted, the entry " advances on 
contracts " being altered to " advances to be re- 
funded, in accordance with a resolution passed at 
a meeting of shareholders on the 1 1th May 1867." 
In May 1806 the company repudiated the con- 
tracts of Jan. and Oct. 1865, as being ultra tnres, 
and in an action against them by the plaintiff for 
ceasing to pay any further money, it was held, 
by tho Court of Excheciuer (Martin, Bramwell, 
and Channell, BB.), first, that tho contracts 
were ultra vires of the directors who had 
no power to bind the company by tho contract 
sued upon, at the time they entered into 
it. Secondly (by Martin and Channell, BB. 
tlisscnliente Bramwell, B.), that the contracts, 
although ui(ra vires, had been ratified by the sub- 
sequent assent and adoption of tho shareholders, 

who, by their conduct, permitted the diroctora to 
hold thmsolvcs out to the plaintiff as authorised I 
to bind tho company, and thereby conferred on ' 
the directors an ostensible authority to that effect. 
But, contra, by Bramwell, B. — There was no rati- 
fication of the contracts even by the shareholdera . 
present at the meetings, but to bind the company i 
(even assuming that could be done) all the share- I 
holders must be bound and must ratify, and hero 1 
the absent shareholders were not bound. By J 
Bramwell, B. — Tho approving and adopting I 
accounts produced at a meeting of a company is^I 
only a recognition that they are accurately I 
stated, and on correct principles ; and is not aa j 
approval of the transactions shown in them, i 
Upon error by the defendants from the judgment 
of the majority of the Court of Exchequer, it was 
Held by the Court of Exchequer Chamber 
(Keating, Blackburn, Brett, Grove, Archibald, 
and Quain, JJ.), affirming tho judgment below oa 
that point, that the contriicts were ultra vires.'^ 
And by Blackburn, Brett, and Grove, J J., that ^ 
the contracts, although not within the scope of tb*.] 
company's memorandum of association, werej 
capable of being ratified, and that the unanimous 1 
shareholders had assented to their ratiticatioaj 
under the seal of tho company, and that suok) 
ratification made them binding on tho company ia ] 
its corporate capacity. But, coiifro, by Keating, 
Archibald, and Quain, JJ.. first, that the con- 
tracts being beyond the scope of the memo- { 
randum of association, and therefore beyond th» 
scope of the incorporation, were incapable of rati- 
fication so as to bind the body corporate, and, ' 
secondly, that there was no proof that they had, i 
in fact, been ratified by the assent, express or J 
implied, of all the shareholilers. By Blackburn, ] 
J.— It is not competent to a person in whose * 
name a contract has been made without authority, 
to sell tho benefit and advantage of the contract,, 
and to authorise the purchaser to sue in his nama 
in order to obtain that benefit if tho contract 1 
should prove advantageous, and at the same timo j 
to reserve power to repudiate the contract if it 1 
proves a losing contract. Tho act of selling th» 1 
contract is an une(iuivocal act of election to' 
ratify and adopt it, and that election once mada 
is determined for ever: {liich^ v. The Ashburtf 
Railway Carriage and Iron Company, 31 L. T. 
Rep. N. S. 339. Ex. and Ex. Oh.) 



Damages- Wrongful Posses.<ion— Occupa.- 
tion Kent — Demolition of Buildinob — 
Measure of Damages. — Damages in the nature 
of an occupation rent will not be given in respect 
of an unfinished house. Before paying the pur- 
chase money for a piece of land, and after having 
expended a large snm in building npon il, the 
purchaser became insolvent, and entered into an 
agreement with tho vendor for the rescission of 
the contract, and the vendor resumed possession 
of the property; but before he did so the pur- 
chaser committed an act of bankruptcy by ab^j 
aconding. Amongst the buildings erected by tl 
purchaser were some stables on a vast scale, an( 
quite nnsuited to the kind of house that any 
prudent man wonld build on tho propierty. Tho 
vendor on resuming possession pnlled down these 
stables. Tho purchaser's assignees in bank- 
ruptcy filed a bill against the vendor for apecifio 
performance of the original contract for sale, and 
by the vendor's consent a decree was made for 
specific performance, and an inquiry was directed 
as to the damages sustained by the plaintiffs by j 
reason of certain acts of the defendant complained ] 
of in the bill. Held (reversing the decision of 
Baoon, V.C.) that as tho demolition of the stahlcS 
did not diminish the selling value of the property, 
the defendant was not liable to pay damages in I 
respect of suoh demolition. — (Krcld v. I'ark, 31 
L. T. K«p. N.S. 325. Chan.). 

Will — Leqact — Specific or Demonstra- 
tive. — A testatrix having, at the date of her j 
will, 30001 Five per Cent Debenture Bonds of ] 
tho East India Loan, beqnoathe 1 " the sam of j 
three thousand pounds, invested in Indian seou- 
rity." Tho bonds were paid off by the Indian 1 
Government during her lifetime. Held, that the I 
legacy was demonstrative, and not specific. — . 
(.Hxillnn V. Uylton, 31 L. T. Rep. N. S. 329. 
V.C. M.). 


The throat and windpipe are especially liable to 
iuflammatiun, cauaioK suroneas and drynesH, tickliuf 
and irritation, inducing; cough and niftctinR'thc voioew ■ 
For these nymptoms use Klyceriue in the form oCl 
iujuhea. Glycerine in these agreeable confectioni^J 
beinfr iu proximity to the glands at the moment th^ I 
are excited by the act of auckiog, beoomei aotivelv 1 
healing. 6d. and U. packets (by p-st 8 or U stampsj^l 
Ial>el>ed " James Epps and Co.. Homoeopathic Cbemlati^ J 
48, Threadneodle-street, and 170, Piccadilly.— [Ajjvt. 3 

digitized by 




[Nov. 21, 1874. 



Election Petition — Withdbawino Peti- 
TiON— Functions of Judge— Conditions op 
WithdrawaIj. — By the Parliamentary Elections 
Act 1808 (31 <t 32 "Vict. o. 125) an election peti- 
tion can only bo withdrawn with leave of the 
court or a judgo. Bat, setnhlc, where the peti- 
tioner withdraws during the hearing of the peti- 
tion it would be practically impossible for the 
judge to proceed with the inquiry. The only 
power which the judge haa in Bach a case is to 
recommend the court not to allow the return of 
the deposit except upon the most satisfactory ex- 
planation of the grounds of the withdrawal of the 
petition. The learned judge having come to the 
conclusion that no case had been made out to 
justify the unsoa'ing of the roppondent the with- 
drawal was allowed, costs following the event : 
{Cil'i of Durham, 31 L. T. Eep. N. S. 321. 
Grove, .T.) 

Scrutiny under sect. 2.5 op the Ballot 
Act — What must be proved to entitle a 
Petitioner to strike opf a Vote fok 
Bribery — Evidence op corrupt Motive. — 
The 25th section of the Ballot Act enacts : 
" Where a canddiato on the trial of an election 
petition claiming the seat for any person, is 
proved to have been gnilty by himself, or by any 
person on liia behalf, of bribery, treating, or 
nndue influence in respect of any person who 
voted at sncli election, there shall, on a scrutiny, 
bo struck off from the number of votes appear- 
ing to have been given to such candidate, one 
vote for every person who voted at such election, 
and is proved to have been so bribed, treated, or 
unduly influenced." Under this section the pro- 
ceedings on a scrutiny remain just the same as 
before under the earlier Acts, except that no 
inquiry can be made as to how the voter voted. 
It is still necessary to prove the candidate guilty 
of bribing, to give evidence of the corrupt receiv- 
ing of the bribe by the voter, and to prove the 
fact of voting. This done the judge may 
strike off a number of votes equal to the 
number of bribed voters (per Lord Coleridge, 
C.J., .and Brett, J., Grove, J., duMtanfe). 
Mr. P., the accepted candidate of a party in a 
borough, di.stributcd gifts of coal to 877 persons 
in the borough, shortly before a dissolution of 
Parliament. Each recipient had, as the authority 
to receive the coal, a card sent to him, on which 
was printed, " With Mr. P.'s compliments," and 
which was signed by Mr. P.'s political agent ; 
and the coals were distributed by persons who 
afterwards canvassed for Mr. P. Held, per Lord 
Coleridge, C.J. and Grove, J., Brett, J., dubi. 
tantc, that this was sufficient evidence, it not 
being rebutted, of a corrupt receiving on the part 
of the electors to bring them within the 25th sec- 
tion of the Ballot Act, as having been " so bribed." 
Beinhle, per Lord Coleridge, C.J. and Brett, J., 
that the words " so bribed " in sect. 24 of the 
Ballot Act refer only to the two modes in which a 
candidate may be guilty of bribery, mentioned in 
the earlier part of the section, and do not mean 
that it is only necessary on a scrutiny to prove 
the act of the briber : (Malcolm v. Ingram, 
91 L. T. Kep. N. S. 331. C. P.) 



(Before H. W. Cole, Q.C, Judge.) 

Dbeley v. The London and North- Western 

Kailwat Company. 

liailwny unpunciuality. 

This was an action to recover Ss. 6d., the cost of 

a cab faro from Birmingham to .Solihull, being the 

amount of damages which the plaintiff alleged ho 

had sustained by reason of a breach of contract 

and negligence on the part of the defendants. 

W.S. AUeii appeared for the plaintiff. 

Page, of London, for the defendants. 

Hia Honour. — The plaintiff resides at Solihull, 
and in August last he, being in Birmingham, took a 
return ticKet from the defendants' station at New- 
street for Sutton Coldfield. He desired on his 
return to Birmingham to go home by the last 
train from Birmingham to Solihull, and it ap- 
peared by the defendants' time tables that the 
last train from Sutton Coldfleld left at 9.15 p.m., 
and arrived in Birmingham at 9.45 p.m. This 
would enable the plaintiff to catch the last train 
from Birmingham to Solihull, which was on the 
Great Western line. The plaintiff presented 
himself at Sutton Cold&eld station in due time, 
and the train, which had first to come from Bir- 
mingham and then turn round and leave for the 
return journey, did not arrive at the proper time 
at Sutton Coldfield, and oonaequently did not start 
to return to Birmingham till 9.40, being twenty- 
five minutes later than the time fixed in the time 
tables, and did not arrive in Birmingham till 
9.30 p.m., being forty-five minutes late. The train 

also took fifty minutea to complete the journey 
from Sutton Coldfieldto Birmingham, beingtwenty 
minutea longer than the time anneunoed in the 
company'a time tables. Thia delay of forty-five 
minutea made the plaintiff toolate by thirty-seven 
minutes to catch the Great- Western train from 
Birmingham to Solihull, and the plaintiff there- 
fore took a cab to the latter place, for which he 
paid 9s. Cd., the sum sought to be recovered in 
this action. On the plaintiff's ticket was the 
usual statement, *' issued subject to the company's 
regulations," and to the conditions in their time- 
tables. These tables were in evidence, and it had 
been decided in Ucntoii v. The (rrcat Northern 
Raili'iay (5 Ell. & B. 860) that the time tables 
constitute evidence of the terms of the contract 
between the parties. But under the general regu- 
lations in the def endanta' time tablea the following 
condition appeared : " Time bills. — The public 
train bills of this company are only intended to 
fix the time at which passengers may be certain 
to obtain their tickets for any journey from 
the various stations, it being understood that the 
trains shall not start before the appointed time. 
Every attention will be paid to insure punctuality 
as far as practicable. The directors give notice 
that the company do not undertake that the trains 
shall start or arrive at the time specified in the 
billa, nor will they bo accountable for any loss, 
inconvenience, or injury which may arise from 
delay or detention." It was an important 
question whether the bare fact that there was 
unpunctnality on the night in question was, 
in the face of the regulations, sufficient to 
fix the company with breach of contract, 
nnleas they could give satisfactory explana- 
tion of the delay. It was, however, not neces- 
sary for him to decide that question, about 
which some difference of opinion existed. For if 
the plaintiff could prove that the company failed 
to fulfil its terms that " every attention " would 
bo paid towards ensuring punctuality as far as 
possible, he (his Honour) was of opinion that the 
company could not really command the protec- 
tion which the general regulation would other- 
wise give. Now, it was proved by the plaintiff'a 
evidence that at Erdington, which was one of the 
intermediate stations on the line between Sutton 
Coldfield and Birmingham, the plaintiff com- 
plained to the station-master of the lateness and 
unpunctnality of the train, to which the station- 
master replied, " It is that stupid fellow of a, 
driver ; he loses two or three minutes at every 
st.ition, although he is already late." It was ob- 
jected on the part of the defendauta that thia 
declaration of the station-master was not admis- 
sible evidence as to the cauae of the delay ; but it 
appeared to him (hia Honour) that all matters 
relating to the starting and arriving of the trains 
were particularly within the scope of a station- 
master's authority; and that the declaration 
made by the Erdington station-master as to the 
cause of the delay and nnpunctuaUty was there- 
fore admiasible against his employers. The case 
of Hurst V. Tlie Qreai Western Railway Company 
(34 L. J. 264, C. P.), which was relied on by the 
defendants, really decided that no special con- 
tract arose from the mere talk of the offi- 
cials ; and what a railway porter may have 
said, did not constitute a special contract bind- 
ing the company. But in the present case 
the evidence was tendered not to prove a 
special contract, but to prove an admission show- 
ing that the contract already entered into was not 
being duly fulfilled by the company. Treating 
the declaration of the station master as 
evidence, and adhering to the fact that the 
engine driver had not been called to prove 
that the fault was not his, and that he was not 
the unakilful person the station master asserted, 
it appeared to him (hia Honour) that he was war- 
ranted in drawing the concluaion that the un- 
punctnality of the train was occasioned by the 
company having entrusted the driving of the train 
to an improper person, and having therefore 
neglected to pay that attention to ensure punctu- 
ality, which was promised in the general regula- 
tions. Under such circumstances, as the delay 
was attributable to the company having provided 
an incompetent engine driver instead of a compe- 
tent one, they could not well be excused under 
the general regulations, and a breach of contract 
had, he thought, been committed. But there was 
nothing to show that in the contract made at 
Birmingham the defendants had notice that the 
plaintiff lived at Solihull, and that if their 
return train were unpunctual he would be 
obliged to return there in a cab. He did not think 
it fairly within the contemplation of both parties 
that they entered into the contract that such 
would be the result if the train arrived at Bir- 
mingham forty-five minutes late. But on the 
authority of Hamlin v. The Great Northern Rail- 
way (26 L. J. 20, Ex.), the defendants, he 
thought, had committed a breach of contract, for 
which the plaintiff waa entitled to nominal 
damages, though he could not recover his cab fare 
to Solihull. He should therefore give him a 
verdict for Is., which would carry the costa. 


Tuesday, Nov. 17. 

(Before J. J. Lonsdale, Esq., Judge.) 

EOSE AND another I'. ClEMITSON. 

Interpleader — Description of m-nrtgagor under 

Bills of Sale Act 1854 (17 (tlS Vict. c. 36), s. I. 
This was an interpleader claim by Bridget 
Clemitson to goods seized in process of execution 
issued by the plaintiffs against Margaret Clemit- 
son. The ground of the claim was that by bill of 
sale dated 17th June 1874 the defendant had 
mortgaged the property seized to the claimant, 
her daughter. 

(?. Whale, solicitor (Woolwich), appeared for 
the plaintiffs. ^ 

E. W. Bewley, solicitor (Graveaend), for tlift- ^t 
claimant. ^M 

The due execution and negotiation of the 
bill of sale was proved, and the evidence of the 
claimant and others to the effect that the bill of 
sale was given lona fide and for valuable oon. 
aideration waa not contradicted. In cr08B> 
examination by Whale, however, the claimant 
admitted that at the date of the bill of sale her 
mother, the defendant, was a baker, but said that 
in and since May 1874 she, the claimant, had 
managed the business for defendant. In the bill 
of sale and affidavit of its execution the de{en> 
dant was described as of a certain street in 
Graveaend and aa a *' widow." 

Whale contended that " widow" did not comply 
with the BUls of Sale |Act 18M (17 & 18 Viot. 
c. 36, 8. 1. which required the occupation of the 
person making or giving the bill of sale to bo 
stated in the affidavit. " Widow " waa no deaorip. 
tion of an occupation, and here it waa ahown that 
defendant waa a baker. Thia should have been 
stated in the affidavit. He also cited Broderick 
and another v. Scale (L. Kep. 6 C. P. 98), (where 
an attorney's clerk who was the atteating witneas 
waa described in the affidavit as a " gentleman"), 
and Ex parte Horman, re Vining (L. Bep. 10 Eq. 
Cas. 63) (where the mortgagor being the lessee 
and manager of a theatre was described as 
"esquire"). In both these oasea the bill of sale 
had been held void on account of informalities of 
thia kind which were likely to mislead creditors. 

Hia Honour said, that one would almost bo 
inclined not to allow force to such an objection, 
but the Legislature had evidently intended to pre- 
vent creditiors from being deceived, and hence the 
affidavit was required to bo in exact conformity 
with the Act. The authorities cited by Mr. Whale 
were conclusive. In no sense oould " widow" be 
hold to be an " occupation." The claim would be 
barred and the coats of the plaintiffs on the intei" 
pleader summons paid by the claimant. 

' Cfoi'm larrei. 


WednesdAy, Nov. 11. 

(Before Edhond Beales, Esq., Judge.) 

Marking v. Headley. 

Measwe of damages — Breach of contract Jiy non 

delivery. _ 

The plaintiff, a raiser of ooprolites, claimed 
^632 15b., damages alleged to have been anstsined 
by the non-delivery of about 400 yards of pipinS 
required for hia mills. 

Cockerell, of the Norfolk Circuit (instmoted by 
James Hunt, of Cambridge), was for the plaintuF. 

Horace Broxcne, of the Norfolk Circuit (in- 
structed by H. J. Whitehead, of Cambridge), for 
the defendant. 

On the 7th Sept., the plaintiff called at the 
defendant's place of business, at Cambridge, ana 
wanted some piping for his works. He waa ay- 
plied by defendant's son with about fifty y"~< 
which WIS all that they had in stock, and the 
defendant's son promised to get the rest from 
another ironmonger in the town, and said that it 
should be ready next morning. The terms wew 
cash in a month. After the plaintiff left, aM 
when defendant heard of the contract, he wrote 
to the plaintiff saying he should refuse to supp'y 
the piping unless the plaintiff paid ready money. 
Plaintiff subsequently called upon defendant, who 
told him that he could only supply the piping for 
ready money, as he understood that the plaintui 
had had some unpleasantness with another pefson 
in the trade with reference to an account. Plain- 
tiff then told him he should get the piping else- 
where, and sue defendant for damages ; and b9 
accordingly purchased it of another ironmonger 
in Cambridge, at precisely the same price, *''®^* 
lapse of about a week. Plaintiff alleged thftt."* 
lost ^2 15s. by reason of not having the .PiP""? 
Headley had contracted to supply him with. * 
Mr. Coningsby had made a claim upon hit" f J* 
.£8 15a,, for a breach of contract, caused by tM 
breach by defendant. He claimed .£5 fo' **?J 
labour he had to engage by reason of not ^^^ 
the pipes ; Je4 for damage owing to fonr "°^ 
being unable to earn their keep for a week, *" ^ij 
general damage to hia buainesa, making up Btoia" 
of ^32 153, 2nd 

Horace Browne, citing Mayno on DamagWf »" 

Digitized by 


Nov. 21, 1874.] 



edit, by Lnmley Smith, contended that the 
damasea songht to be recovered could not be 
Awarded. The simple measure of damages was, 
he contended, the difference between the contract 
price and that which goods of a similar descrip- 
tion and quality bore at the time when they 
ought to have been delivered : (Gainsford v. 
Carroll, 2 B. & C. 624 ; Wilson v. Lancashire and 
^Yorkshire Railway Company, 9 C.B., N. S , 632 ; 
e's NisiPrius, 12th edit. 475.) And as in this 
F«a*e there was no difference at all, but the 
amounts were exactly the name, the damages 
miut only be nominal — at the very least, one 

Cockerell contended that those authorities only 

Applied to cases where the contract was to supply 

kon a future day. In Smeed v. Ford (28 L. J., 178, 

IQ.B.) it was held that damage occasioned by long 

exposure of corn, owing to the non-delivery of a 

thrashing machine for six weeks was recoverable. 

Horace Browne pointed out that that case ex- 
presaly proceeded on the principle of Hadley v. 
Bcuxndale (9 Ex. 341), and that therefore even 
rif his contention for nominal damages wore over- 
ruled, thf damages must be such as were reasona- 
^bly in the contemplation of the parties. How 
ould Headloy know anything about Coningsby's 
ontract in this case P 

His Honour thought that the cases quoted for 
the defendant only applied to contracts to deliver 
at a future time. [Horace Browne. — This is a 
future time ; the order was a day before the goods 
were to be delivered.] But he did not think that 
the small difference of one day was sufficient to 
support that view of the case. There was much 
force, however, in the argument about Coningsby. 
How could He.adley know of that liability in case 
he neglected to perform his contract. 

Cocktrell proposed to recall the plaintiff to show 
that he gave express notice at the time, and this 
was allowed. He said that he told Headlcy's son 
that if he did not have the piping next morning 
bis mills would be stopped. 

ffis HoNotTR said that he should therefore strike 
ont the claim of £S 15a. 

Horace Broicnc atrain strongly urged that the 
doctrine laid down in Mayne on Damages applied, 
and that the damages must be nominal. Such a 
sum as .£15 as claimed for general damages, was 
obviously too remote to bo sustained. 

His Honour said that he should decide the 
cue by allowing .£10 damages in all ; that sum 
consisting of Jf5 extra labour, £i for the item of 
horses, and .£1 for general damage. The costs 
to be taxed on the higher scale. 

Notice was given of an appeal by the defen- 


(Before the Chief Jddob in Bankruptcy.) 
Tuesday, Nov. 10. 
Exparte Wilkbs j Be Pinches. 
Fraudulent preference. 
This was an appeal on behalf of Mr. £. Wilkes, 
aooountant, of Plymouth, the trustee of the 
bankrupt, who formerly occupied the Bedford 
Wine and Spirit Vaults, Plymouth, against an 
order pronounced by the Judge of the Stonchouse 
County Court on the 12th Aug. last, whereby ho 
lefuBcd the application of the trustee, that Air. 
Edward George Lewer, brewer, of Plymouth, 
■honld pay to him as trustee the sum of 
£lS! 6s. 4d., and likewiiie ordered the trustee to 
pay Mr. Lower's costs from the time of filing 
certain affidavits used in support of such appli- 

Robertson (hriffilhs (instructed by Ahraham 
Biuiies, solicitor, of London, agent for J. E. 
Cvrttis, Bolicitor, of Stonehouse), appeared for 
the appellant ; and 

F.Knvjlit (instructed by Messrs. Quscotle,ol 
Iiondon, solicitors, agents for Sparkes, solicitor, 
e£ Crediton), for the roapondent, Mr. Lewer. 

From the afHdavits filed it would seem that at 
• time when bankrupt was perfectly insolvent the 
twpondent, on behalf of himself and Mr. Bad- 
oooc, of Crediton, purchased the bankrupt's 
fauiness, and claimed to deduct the debts due 
trom P^ches to himself and Badcock. The 
County Court judge decided that he was entitled 
lo do this, 'out the trustee being dissatisfied with 
this decision appealed. 

Qrigitha contended that the sale by Pinches ta 
Lewer was for a past debt, and without adequate 
consideration, inasmuch as the i:28 paid was not 
■nlBciont, and that not only was Lewcr's a bye- 
Kone debt, but Badcock' a wsls one also. He 
(Qri^lhi,) quoted an analogous case of Newton, 
assignee of Sleelfox v. Chandler, in which Lord 
EUenborough decided in favour of the assignee. 

Knight argued that the judge of the County 
Court was right in making the order. 

His Honoub held that whatever verbal agree- 
D*nt might have been come to on the 17th Deo 
tPoat deducting the amount of the debts from the 

purchase money, not one word to that effect was 
inserted in the agreement signed on the 19th of 
that month, and could not therefore be enter- 
tained. Anything more of a fraudulent prefer- 
ence to Lewer and Badcock ho could not conceive. 
Lewer could not say he was ignorant of his 
(Pinches') condition, for he was told that the 
bailiffs were in Pinches' house, and knew of his 
poverty by tidvaneing him .£10. Badcock likewise 
showed by his acts that he was aware of Pinches' 
condition. He had not, therefore, the slightest 
hesitation in saying that the knowledge of Pinches' 
condition had been brought home to Lewer before 
the contract had been completed, and as nothing 
could be clearer in his mind than that Lewer was 
bound by the express terms of the contract, it 
was unnecessary to refer to any cases. The trustee 
being bound to ask Lewer to pay the balance of 
the purchase money, his application to the judge 
of the County Court was a proper one, and there- 
fore his order was that the order in the court 
below bo discharged. Mr. Lewer to pay to the 
trustee the ^67 6s. 4d. and the costs in the court 

Wednesday, Nov. 18. 

(Beforo Mr. Kegistrar Mureat, sitting as Chief 


Re Von Hapen, ex parte Paslet. 

Joint and separate estate — Right of joint creditor 

filing a separate petition to prove on the separate 

In this case Sir Thomas Pasley was a creditor of 
the firm of Von Haten and Pasley. He pre- 
sented separate petitions against the partners, 
and in the bankruptcy of Von Hafen songht to 
prove as a separate creditor. His claim Was re- 
jected by the trustee. From this decision Sir T. 
Pasley appealed. 

De Qex, Q.C., and Barley were counsel for the 
creditor ; 

Horace Davey (of the Equity Bar), and F. 
Oclavius Crump (of the Common Law Bar), for 
the trustee. 

De Qcx, Q.C, reviewed the history of the rules 
with reference to proofs against joint and sepa- 
rate estates. One of the exceptions to the rule 
that a joint creditor could not prove against 
separate estate, was in favour of a petitioning 
creditor. This was fully established by Ex parte 
Elton, Ex parte Hall, Ex parte Aclccrnian, Ex 
parte Ihimett, cited in 1 Griffiths and Holmes 
657. Those cases were previous to the Act 
of 1849, which, by its 140th section, said that 
a joint creditor might prove and vote in the 
choice of assignees under a separate adjudica- 
tion, but should not receive any dividend out of 
the separate estate- This section was not re- 
pealed by the Aot of 1861, and is re-enacted in the 
Act of 1869. But it was not the intention of the 
Legislature to override the old rule, and these 
sections must be taken to refer to joint creditors 
other than the petitioning creditor. He cited 
Haiakins v. Oathercole (De G. M. & G. 1) ; The 
Liverpool Bank v. Turner (2 De G. F. <fc J. 502 ; 
Ex parte Barned (1 G. & J. 309) ; Eobson Bank- 
ruptcy (second edit.), 610; 1 Griffiths & Holmes, 

The Eeqistrae observed in the course of the 
argumen t that it was remarkable that there should 
have been no case on the subject since the passing 
of the Act of 18-19. The section of that Act and 
the Act of 1861 used negative words. Subse- 
quently, on its appearing that Sir T. Pasley had 
also presented a separate petition against Pasley 
the Kc'gistiar requested t)a Gex to consider the 
position of the matter. 

The hearing was adjourned to Nov. 25. 

Saturday, Nov. 14. 
(Before J. F. Collier, Esq., Judge.) 
Cohen v. Holden. 
Status of a bankrupt whose bankruptcy is unclosed 
— Right toproperty acquired during continuance 
of bankruptcy — Its liability to be seized by trustee 
until bankruptcy closed. 
This was a case of considerable importance, and, 
somewhat singularly, is the first which has raised 
the question of the status of a bankrupt whose 
bankruptcy is unclosed and his right to property 
which no may acquire during the continuance of 
the bankruptcy. Under former bankruptcy 
statutes it was considered that all property ac- 
quired by a discharged bankrupt he was entitled 
to retain, but it appears such is not the case now, 
and that although ho may be discharged, his pro- 
perty is liable to be seized by his trustee until 
the closo of the bankruptcy. The present bank- 
rupt was Mr. John I'eakman, of Liverpool, metal 
merchant. His bankruptcy took place two or three 
years ago, and although there are no assets, the 
trustee, Mr. Bolland, had not closed the bank- 
ruptcy. The question was raised by an inter- 
pleader issue, and came before the court on the 
4th inst. 

hrennedy, instmoted by Nordon, appearing for 
the claimant, 

Lupton, instructed by Goodman, for the exeon. 
tion creditor, when judgment was reserved. 

His Honour now said: This was an inter- 
pleader issue to determine the ri(rbt to certain < 
furniture taken in execution for a debt. H olden, 
the execution creditor, levied an execution on tha 
household goods of the execution debtor at his { 
house, at Blundellsands. The execution debtor j 
was a bankrupt. The f nnliture in question had { 
been purchased by him, according to his evidence, 
during the continuance of his bankruptcy, with ' 
money acquired in trade. Before he removed to 1 
the residence at which the execution was levied, I 
ho had given a bill of Bale of it to Cohen, the ' 
claimant. The validity of this bill of sale was not 
disputed. According to the form in which intor- I 
pleader issues are tried in the County Court, the j 
claimant is the plaintiff and the execution creditor I 
the defendant. The claimant has, therefore, to j 
establish his title, and this I think the defendant j 
can defeat by showing that the title is in somo j 
one else ; for this the cases of Oreen v. Rogers 
(2 Car. & K. 148) and Gadsden v. Barron- (23 L. J. ; 
134, Ex.) are sufficient authorities. The titlo 1 
defendant set np was that of the trustee under the j 
bankruptcy of the execution debtor, and it remains ' 
to consider whether his title was a good one. By 
sect. 15, sub-sect. 3, of the Bankruptcy Act 1869, 
the property of the bankrupt divisible among his 
creditors (in the Act referred to as " the property 
of the bankrupt ") comprises aU such property aB 
may belong to or be vested in the bankrupt at ' 
the commencement of the bankruptcy, or may ', 
be acquired by or devolve on him during its ' 
continuance. By sect. 17, when a trustee has j 
been appointed, the property of the bankrupt , 
forthwith passes to and vests in the trustee. By I 
sect. 19, if the bankrupt shall fail to deliver up j 
possession to the trustee of any part of his pro. 
perty which is divisible among his creditors, and 
which may for the time being be in his posses' 1 
sion or under his control, he is guilty of contempt 
of court. A bankrupt may be allowed to carry on , 
business, and no doubt in many cases it is for thej 
interest of the creditors that he should do so. II 
he may carry on bnsiness, he may contract and buy 
and sell and possess goods ; but I think the policy 
and intention of the present bankrupt law is that J 
until the close of the bankruptcy all his dealingjlj 
should be carried on for the benefit of.'his ciecu- 
tors. It appears to me that any property he ao- 
qaires forthwith passes under the Act to the 
trustee, and that the bankrupt can only deal with • 
it on the sufferance of his creditors. It can | 
hardly be said that a [bankrupt's purchase of fur« 
niture for his own use is for the benefit of his 
creditors ; and in this case, as the trustee had no 
notice of his possession, it cannot be inferred 
that he possessed it by the sufferance of the 
trustee or the creditors. In my opinion the fur- 
niture passed, as soon as purchased, to the 
trustee, and the bankrupt had no permission, ex- 
pressed or implied, to part with it. There was no 
laches by the trustee in asserting his right, for ha 
had no notice of the purchase, and therefore tha 
bankrupt had no power to transfer it, and the 
claim of Cohen must fail. My judgment will 
therefore be for the execution oreaitor with costs. 


The Lord High Chancellor has ordered 
that the offices of the County Courts may be closed 
on the 26th and 2Sth Dec. next. 

Sir William Vernon Harcourt, Q.C, has 
accepted a retainer, and will appear on behalf of 
Dr. Konealey at the inquiry to be instituted by the 
benchers of his Inn on the 26th inst. 

The Divorce Court. — The annual return 
made to the Secretary of State by the Kegistrar 
of the Divorce Court shows that in the year 1878 
the court made as many as 215 " decrees absolnto " 
for the dissolution of marriages. In 1872 the num- 
ber was only 133 ; in 1871 it was 166 ; in 1870 it 
was 154 ; averaging 151 a year in those three 
years. The increased namber in 1873 raises the 
average of the last four years to 167 a year. 
The Act creating this court came into operation in 
January 1858. 

At Hammersmith, Mr. Jones, clerk of tha 
Fulham Board of Works, attended in support •( 
a number of summonses against owners of property 
in Bavensoourt Fark-roEid for their apportioned 
expenses for the construction of a sewer and tha 
paving of the street. Mr. Cross objected to the 
way in which the surveyor had made his estimate. 
Mr. Ingham referred to the words in the Metro- 
polis Local Management Act, and said that if the 
Board thought it just and expedient he had no 
power but to order the amounts to bo paid. Mr. 
Cross said that was an anomaly in the law. Mr. 
Ingham told him that his remedy was to petition 
the Legislature to alter the law. Mr. Cross said 
he raised the objection for the purpose of having 
it reported in the press, to strtmguien the handis 

iigitized by 




fNov. 21, 1874. 

of those who wero promoting the new Municipal 
Bill. Mr. Ingham made an order for the amonntB 
to be paid, ijimilar orders wore made in other 

Pbactical Men on thk New Building Socie- 
ties Act. — The London Mirror reports numerous 
speeches on tho probable operation of the Act made 
•t a luncheon recently given by the p'oinoters of 
the first society registered under it (37 & 38 Vict. 
o. 42), the chairman (Mr. ¥. Kent, C. C), stated 
that tho salient feature of the Act was that in 
fntnre such societies would be recognised by their 
corporate seal, and there would bo no necessity 
in future for trustees ; but a society could enter 
into contracts under its seal as in the case of 
limited liability companies. Another thing— and 
for this they wero indebted to their good friend 
Mr. 'Williams — building societies would have to 
Bend in their accounts yearly to the registrar. 
That had not previously been the case, and 
he spoke with authority when he said that 
heretofore building societies had been despotic 
in the hands of the few, and it was considered 
presumptuous to differ from them, and even 
BtiU more presumptuous to ask for accounts. 
(Hear, hear.) As to the society they wero now 
starting, one of its greatest features would be 
that instead of an audit onco a year, as in the case 
of all good building societies, there would be a 
perpetual audit. (Hear, hear.) One fault of the 
system, as stated by Mr. Williams before the 
commissioners, was that their secretaries, how- 
ever capable in other respects, knew nothing 
of figures, and in this respect they were like 
hiwyers, not one of whom, out of twelve, 
good at accounts. Mr. Williams had not only 
pointed out this real blot, but he had intro- 
ouced to the commissioners his own system of 
accounts, and, on their reoommendation, this form 
of accounts had betn adopted in the Act. — Mr. 
UoGeorge spoke with all deference, but ho thought 
that the proposed extension of the period of re- 
payment to twenty-five years, which was a long 
period in the life of man, required the most care- 
ful consideration, although no doubt it had 
already received it. There was another point on 
which he desired information — could they, under 
the now Act, reborrow money on their deeds ? 
The provi.'»ion8 of the Act were subjected to other 
useful crit'cism which want of spaco precludes 
our reproducing. 


HiLABT Examination, 1875. 
The attention of students is requested to the 
following rales : 

As un encouragement to students to 'study 
Jurisprudence and Buman Civil Law, twelve 
•tudentshipa of one hundred guiueas each 
■hall be establi.shed, and divided equally into 
two classes ; the first class of studentships to 
continue for two years, and to be open for com- 
petition to any student as to whom not more than 
lour terms shall have elapsed since ho kept his 
first term ; and tho second class to continue for 
one year only, and to be open for competition to 
any student, not then already entitled to a student- 
ship, as to whom not less than four and not more 
than eight terms shall have elapsed since he kept 
his fir.»t term ; two of each class of such student- 
ships to be awarded by the council, on the recom- 
mendation of the committee, after every examina- 
tion before Hilary and Trinity Terms respectively, 
to the two students of each sot of competitors 
■who shall have passed the best examination in 
Jurisprudence and Roman Civil Law. Bnt the 
committee shall not be obliged to recommend any 
studentship to be awarded if the result of the 
examination be such as in their opinion not to 
justify such recommendation. 

Any student admitted before 1st Jan. 1873, 
shall be entitled to compete for the studentships 
above mentiont-d ; provided that at the time of his 
examination not more than eleven terms shall 
have elapsed since his admission. 

No student admitted after the 31st Dee. 1872, 
shall receive from the council the certificate of 
fitness for call to the Bar required by tho four 
inns of court, unless he shall have passed a satis- 
factory examination in the following subjects, viz , 
first, Roman Civil Law ; secondly, the Law of Real 
and P«rHonal Proijorty ; and thirdly, Common Law 
and Equity. 

No stu<ient admitted after the 3l8t Dec. 1872, 
shall be examined for call to the Bar until he shall 
have kept nine turms ; except ;hat students ad- 
mitted after that day shall have the option of 
passing tho examination in Roman Civil Law at 
any time aft«r having kept four terms. 

An examination will be held in .January next, to 
which a student of any of the Inns of Court, who 
is desirous of becoming a candidate for a student- 
ship or honours, or of obtMining a certificate of 
fitness for being called to the Bar, or of passing 

the examination in Roman Civil Law, wiU be ad- 

Each student proposing to submit himself for 
examination will he required to enter his name at 
the treasurer's office of the Inn of Court to which 
he belongs, on or before Monday, the 21st Dec. 
next ; and he will farther be required to state in 
writing whether his object in offering himself for 
examination is to compete for a studentship or 
honours, or of obtaining a certificate preliminary 
to a call to the Bar, or whether he is merely 
desirous of passing the examination in Roman 
Civil Law under theabavc-stated rule. 

The examination will commence on Friday, the 
Ift day of January next, and will be continued 
on tho Saturday, Monday, Tuesday and Wednes- 
day following. 

it will take place in the Hall of Lincoln's Inn ; 
and the doors will be closed ten minutes after 
the time appointed for the commencement of the 

Tlie examination by printed quesidons will be 
conducted in the following order : 

Friday and Saturday, 1st and 2nd Jan. at 
ten until one, and from two until fivo on 
each day, the examination of candidates 
for studentships in Jurisprudence and 
Roman Civil Law. 
The examination of candidates for honours and 
pass certificates will take place as follows : 

Monday morning, 4th .Tan., at ten until 
one, on Constitutional Law and L^gal His- 
tory ; in the afternoon, at two nntil five, on 
Tuesday morning, 5th Jan., at ten nntil 
one, on Common Law ; in the afternoon, 
at two until five, on the Law of Real and 
•Personal Property. 
Wednesday morning, 6th Jan., at ten nntil 
one, on -Jurisprudence, Civil and Inter- 
national Law, Public and Private, and 
Roman Civil Law. 
The oral examination will be conducted in the 
same order, during tho same hours, and on the 
same subjects, as those already marked out for 
the examination by printed questions. 


Candidates for the studentships will be ex- 
amined in all the following subjects : — 

1. Institntes of Giiins and of Justinian. 

2. Tho first book of the Institutes of Justinian 
(illustrated by corresponding portions of the 

3. History of Roman Law (Ortolan). 

4. Principles of Jurisi>rndenoe, as developed by 
Bentham, Austin and Maine. 

5. Elements of International Law (Woolsey). 

6. Elements of Private International Law 

Candidates for honours will be examined in those 
numbered 1, 3, and 5 ; candidates for a pass certi- 
ficate in the Institutes of Justinian (Sandars' 

The examiner in Constitutional Law and Legal 
History wiU examine in the following books and 
subjects ; — 

1. Hallam's Middle Ages, chap. 8. 

2. Hallam's Constitutional Hi.story, 

3. Broom's Constitutional Law. 

4. The Principal State Trials of the Stuart 

5. The concluding chapter of Blackstone on tho 
Progress of the Laws of Ent^land. 

Candidates for honours will be examined in all 
the above-mentioned books and subjects ; candi- 
dates for a pass certificate only will be examined 
in No. 1 and No. 4 only, or in No. 2 and No. 3 only 
of tho foresroiug anbjents, at their option. 

The Examiner in Equity will examine in tho 
following subjects : — 

1. Trusts. 

2. Injunctions. 

3. Specific Performance. 

4. Partnership. 

5. Notice (Actual and Constructive). 
Candidates for honours will be examined in tho 

above-mentioned subjects, under heads 1, 3, 4, 
and 5. Candidates for a pass certificate only, in 
those nnder heads 1 and 2. 

The Examiner in the Law of Real and Personal 
Property will examine in tho followine subjects : — 

1. The Feudal Law, as adopted in England, and 
the Statutory Changes in it. 

2. Estates, Rights, and Interests in Real and 
Personal Property ; and Assurances and Contracts 
concerning the same. 

3. Mortmain ; Perpetuity or Remoteness ; Con- 
ditions ; Easements ; Notice, Election and Satis- 
faction. for a pass certificate only will bo 
examined in the elements of tho foregoing sub 
jects ; candidates for honours will have a higher 

The Examiners in Common Law will examine 
in the following subjects : — 

1. The Law of Contracts and Mercantile Law. 

2. The Law of Torts. 

3. The Law of Crimes. 

4. The Law of Procedure and Evidence. 
Candidates for a pass certificate only will 1 

examined on general and elementary principles 
of law ; and from candidates for honours, ths 
examiners will require a more advanced know. 
li'd;;e of the applination of those principles, and a 
knowledge of leading decisions. 

By order of the Council, 
(Signed) B. Spencee For.tBTT. 

Chairman (for the da.y)k ' 
Council Chamber, Lincoln's Inn Hall, 
7th Nov., 1874. 


Won.— Thin DepBrtmentof the I/AW Tian being open! 
free diKcuflpion ou nil profeHiioiial topics, the Editor ia na 
responsible for any opinions or statements contained ilii( 

Salaries of Lawyers' Clerks. — I read 
letter from " A Managing Clerk " in your issue at 
the 10th ult., and observe the letterof " ACounhy 
Manager" in your paper of the 7th iust. 
latter of whom is evidently admitted, and 
looks upon tho question of salaries paid tolat 
clerks from his own point of view, and those of 
his sot ; if, however, the object of " A Countj 
Manager " was to benefit the law clerks as a cl 
he is entitled to credit, and to our tl 
Perhaps " A Country Manager " will allow me 
state that, in my opinion, the cause of the present 
low salaries paid to law cUrks is not far to seek. 
The Profession is overstocked, and I cannot ei- 
press myself better than in the word.< of a welt 
known author, who says : " How absurdly those 
parents act who have no fortune to grive a son, iij 
bringing him up to be an attorney's clerk, and thai 
force him to be content with an income more pre- 
carious, and not much more certain than that of a 
journeyman tailor," and it ia to be regretted 
" that so many young men who could fill other 
situations with honour and respect are now nuk- 
ing pell mcU into the Profession without aim or 
object." Tho prospect is anything but cheering 
to those who may have embarked in such s 
profession ; but it is fair to suppose that, 
at the time a young gentleman is articled 
to a solicitor, cither he or his parents, have 
other and higher ambitions or motives than 
for him to attain the unenviable and any- 
thing but lucrative position of " A Coontey 
Manager." I know a firm of solicitors who 
recently advertised for a managing clerk, thy 
received no leas than fifty replies to their ad- 
vertisement, forty-eight of those replies beiif 
from admitted clerks (at merely nominal salaries), 
and only two from unarticled clerks, this must 
speak for itself and should open tho eyes of "A 
Country Manager" and others who may aspirew 
a similar position. Experience mnst be their 
schoolmaster, but unfortunately, the admitted 
clerks not only injure themselves by asking audi 
low salaries but also those clerks, such as myMBJ 
who may have entered a solicitors' office at 
early age, whose province I maintain is " eir 
ship," and who are ccn-equently entitled to 
sideration. Through perseverance and study 
for the last twenty years I have attained _»n 
honourable position as a clerk, and l>*v^ 
the confidence of my employers, coupled witll 
a pretty liberf^l salary, I have no canse to 
envy my admitted brethren, nor do I wish to 
trespass on their preserves. I may stats tt" 
from n.y experience I conclude that when a sod- 
citor engages a " managing " clerk ho does not 
require one in name only, or as a mere omameiit 
to the office, but expects to find such a clerk tho- 
roughly experienced and well acquainted with the 
duties ho may undertake, and the practical put 
of the business of a solicitor's office. It is, how- 
ever, to be feared that this is scarcely attaipaoB 
after only a five years' clerkship nnder articles: 
hence the reason why the preference is generally 
given by solicitors to 

An Unarticlbd Manaoks- 

Manaoino Clerks.— I am glad attention luj 
been called through your columns to the present 
rate of remuneration and Innis s'andi of managing 
clerks, but when one considers how much at the 
present time tho supply, which inoreiises '^3 
term, exceeds the demand, there is little hojfc 
that principals will give larger salaries when 
there are men glad to get clerkships at reslly 
little more than what a well trained writin? 
clerk can earn. But, sir, I come to another 
question. Is it unreasonable that men who hate 
had the education of gentlemen, and in ninaoMes 
out of ten are on the same level in society as their 
principals, should expect to be treated as gentle- 
men, and not, as in many, as if they "*ro, 
merely useful pieces of office furniture ? HoorsS 
9.30to G.G.SO, and 7 o'clock, or even later ifitsm 
the principal, are as much as most tnencanbear.bir 
when to these are added an offi n-ive and nogonl?- 
manly behavionr ou the part of the prindpal'i '^ " 

)igitized by 


Nov. 21, 1874.] 




mllj difficult to imagine a, more nnsatiafactory 

•nd trying position than that of, I four, too macy 

<d my brethren. It will hardly bo credited that 

in some offices in Town, even in Lincoln's-inn, the 

alifhtlnxory of a Sat irday half holiday ia denied 

the clerks, who, therefore, have to work Ions 

honrs from Monday iriurning to Saturday night 

, withontahrcak.tutbedctrimentof their health and 

bsmanifeatencourngcmentof a Hpiritof discontent 

onghoat the ofJioe. On behalf of gentlemen 

> litnated, I wonld ask you to nsc your powerful 

I in endeavouring to persuade those solicitors 

whose offices Saturday is as other dayn, and 

Faftentimes much more abundant, and who discuss 

I these matters over their chops and sherry at the 

club, that their interests would be better 

Ted by an alteration in this respect, and that 

r granting the now almost universal half holiday 

^tha cause of a great deal of dissatisfaction which 

^aow prevails wonld be removed. Serous. 

CcEious Decision. — The decision of his 
nour in BariTstock v. Cox, reported in last 
week's Law Times, and commented upon under 
tbe above heading by a correspondent who signs 
' nself " Lex," appears to me to be good law. 
he rule of the road is not, as your correspondent 
opposes, inflexible. Circumstances may arise 
jrane a deviation therefrom would not only be 
stified but absolutely necessary. In Chaplin v. 
latves (I! C. A P. 551), it is laid down that 
' though the rule of the road is not to be adhered 
to if by departing from it an injury can bo avoided, 
and there is clear space enough to get out of the 
way ; yet in cases whore parties meet on a sudden 
and an injury results, the party on the wron^ side 
is answerable, unless it clearly appear that the 
party on the right side had ample means and 
opportunity to prevent it." And see Clay v. 
Wood (."i Ksp. 42), and Oliphant on Horses, &o., 
2Ed edit., p. 242. E. T. Tyson. 

OrFiciotrs Govebnmbnt OrFiciA.LS. — A client 
of ours has received one of those " interesting 
documents" referred to in the 25th page oi your 
iasne of last week, sent from the office of the 
Comptroller of the Savings Bank Department. It 
is too had that the Profession, paying so much to 
Government, should be encroached upon by clerks 
and oflii^ials in Government offices. We are obliged 
to you for bringing it before the notice of the 
Profession in your valuable journal, and write 
this to express onr warm approval. 

Burton and Sox. 

The Judicature Act and Law Examination. 
— Can yon inform me in the next issue of 
the Liw TiMKS, whether it has been decided not 
to ask any questions on the Judicature Act 
dohng the examination in 1875 ; or how other- 
wise. I was informed by Mr. Williamson (the 
Law Society a secretary) about throe weeks ago, 
that "the examiners had not decided the point ;" 
so that I .am wholly at a loss to know what to 
read in that particular branch of study affected 
the Act. I am going up in April 1875.— S. W. 
correspondent must pnrsue the usual 
of study, including the provisions of the 
in questiuu : due notice will no doubt be 
given by tlui examiners however, and we bhuU take 
car* to make the earliest possible announcement 
oa the subject.— Ed. Sols'. Dept.I 


Beferring to the inquiries made by two of your 
correspondentB, 1 r< grot to say I see no room for 
doubt of the fact that under the recent Building 
Societies' Act the exemption from stamp duty on 
mortgages is entirely abolished. The exemption 
origmally created by the <> & 7 Will. 4, o. 32, 
f. 4, which ext^'uded to building societies the 
ption of tho Friendly Societies' Act (10 Geo. 4, 
56, ». 37). The Act of 7 & 8 WiU. 4, 
repealed, hcnco I take it there can be 
BO doubt the exemption falls with it, and 
in the new Act mortgages are expressly excluded 
from thu exemption cimiainod in the 41st section 
of the Act. True tho Stump Act (33 & 34 Vict. 
0. 97) confirms the exemption contained in G & 7 
Will. 4, and is not repealed ; but it does not 
create the exemption, and only defines the terms 
of it. I should be very glad if any of your corre- 
iposdenta can show that I urn wrong, as 1 am 
concerned for a building society that does a very 
latge business, and already fear thu inconvenience 
of having toget our deeds st^imped. 

An Irish Solicitor. 

Solicitor elected Mayor— Correction. — 
In ;oar edition of last Saturday you place 
amongst the number of solicitors who were on 
the 9th inst. elected to the office of mayor the 
name of '• VV. II. Stewart, sen., Wakefield. ' Now 
instead of "sen." it ought to be "jun.." and 
therefore, as corrected, it will read " W. H. 
Stewart, jun." Further than this 1 may state 
h« is th« youngest member in the Wakofield Town 
Council.— H. MosELEY, solicitor, 42, New-street, 

■«■■ V 

^^^ rt 


NoTiCB.— We mnst remind our correspondent* that IhU 
cohttnn in not open to qiie^tioua involving pofutx of Uw 
Bucii ftH a solicitor HhoulJ be coneiiltud upou Quorit^i will 
be excluded wliich ko iMiytiid our liiniLs. 

N.B.— None are iUBorted nnle»i» the name and address of the 
writers are sent, not neceaaariiy for pablicatiou, but a« a 
goarauteo for tioita /i(U$, 



16. Will — Constuuction. — In " Comyn's Eier- 
ciHes on Abatracte " it is in a probate copy will recittd 
that Bohert Limoud K'-Avo and demised his farm, called 
Dairy Farm, to the use* of bis trustees therein named, 
thi^ir execurors, and asHigns, for ever upou trust for 
teHtator's son, Cbrititopber Limoud, aud his aitsigna 
during bis life. Remsinder. lu trust for the tirat aud 
every son andsobsof a;iiaChritit<>pber Limondsuverally 
aud succesBivelj ouo after another, and the heirs male 
of the body and bodies of Buch son aud sous UwluUy 
issniug. Remainder in trust for the rit^bt heirs of said 
Cbristopber Limond for ever. Christopber Limoud, on 
the 2ird Juue i8i>l (twenty years after), conveys in fee 
the said farm, called Dairy Farm, to lienjamiu Goud- 
wiu, aud in tho aSAurunce it i« recited that Cbriatopbor 
Limoud hud no isnue. I should feel much obliged to 
auy correspondeut who would answer me the following 
questions; 1. Are not the words "sou and sons" in the 
said will mentioned, words of purchase? 2. How is it 
that Cbtidtopber Limond is eiial>led to make a valid 
conveyauoe in fee in the face of this limitation? 3. 
What is the necoi^slty for reciting tbut Cbristopber 
Limoud bad no issue? 4. The trustees in the will men- 
tioned did not j')in in the indenture of the 23rd Jiipe 
XtVii. Would uot their interest be coDBoqiieutly out- 
standing ? Lakcabteu, 

17. Acknowledgment nv Married Woman. — A 
leasehold estate is assigned to a man and hts wife, 
" their exeuutors, Qdmiiiiatrarors. and assigua as 
teuauta by entireties." Can the busbaud deal with the 
property without the conseut of the wife in accordaaee 
with the rule that a husband ban the solo disposiug 
l>ower of 1 is wife's leaseholda by act iu*t^r ruuit.-, or 
does the fact of the estnte being assigned tu them as 
" tenants by entiretiua" render necessary tho concur- 
rence nnd aikuowledgment under the Act of Wiliiam of 
the wife, as would undoubtedly be the case with free- 
holds. Oocs a temuicy by eutirebieu strictly apply to 
leaseholds at all ? PoiirEic. 

IS, National Schools. — A clergyman of the Church 
of England bas dismissed three children Irom the 
national schools in his parish for wearing earrings, 
stating, as bis reason, that their use is forbidden b> one 
of the written rules of the 8cb>ols; but ho refuses to 
allow such rules to be seen. Is he uot bound to post 
up the rules in the schools, or permit their inspection ? 
What are his powers to dismiss cbildren, or to make or 
enforce rules ? Have not the pupils' parents auy, and, 
if so, what redress? The schools referred \o have re- 
ceived Government grants, aud are subject to Govcrn- 
meut iuspeotiou. ., - J. K, 

19. Reversion— MoRTOAOE.— A. agrees to lend B. a 
ceituin sum upim mortgage of a reversionary interest 
of the latter in real and personal property, and A. has 
incurred considerable costs in inre^^ttgatiog B.'s title. 
6. subsequeutly declioes to proceed with the matter 
as not then re<iuiring the mouey. Can any corre- 
spondent inform me whether A. has any equitable 
charge on the reversion in respect of the costs incurred 
by him; or is bis only remedy amviust li. by action at 
law in the event of the latter decliuiug to pay the coots ? 

F. E. H, 

20. Notice to Quit.— A . B. and C. (married women) 
become entitled as co-betrcssca to a freehold house 
unler the intestacy of their father. A. becomes a 
widow, and afterward marries L>.. the tenant of the 
bou-e. D. leaves the bouse and relets it himself. Huw 
lire B and C. to proceed to give the new tenant notice 
to quit or raise the rent ? \Vill a notii*« signed by them 
and tbeir bunbands he valid and binding upou the new 
tenant ? if uot, what other stt^ps can B. and C. take to 
give a proper notice to quit or raise the rnnt. 

_^ H. Dickson. 

21. Railway Unpfkctdalitt. — WiU some one refer 
me to any c&.ne8, other thau those metftioued below, on 
the subject nf the li^ibiiUy of railway companies for the 
unpunctuility of trains ? If reference could be given to 
The Law Times or Law Times Reporti it would facili- 
tate tbo peru.tul of the cases. I have at present Taruer 
V. Tht 0, W. R. Co. ; Cloujh v, Tht Lancaehire aud York- 
shire R. Co. ; BttMtfll T. The G. W. U, Co, ; Cooper v. The 
L. (t. N. W. R. Co, S£»Ex. 

23. Articled Clerk— Assionment.—E. is articled to 
Y., who is in partberabip with C. ; when about a year 
and a half of E.'s term of clerkship is over, Y. dies ; E, 
continuoR t<> attend and to work at the ofRce under tho 
surviviutc partner C, to whom, at the end of a month, ho 
i^ ahsignea. Will tbo time that elap8<td from tbo death 
of Y. to the assignment of E.toC be reckoned iu the 
pompntaiiou of tiie rive years required by Q&.7 Vict. c. 
7J? lu Kxjm-te P.J. H'.iII.a (.U L. J., N. S, 17*f, Q. B.),a 
CJise rather a milar to this, the iirticled clerk's deceoited 
priucipnl htid no partner under whom the articled clerk 
could continue to serve. Are Y.'a execu'ors the right 
l>ersonrt to aasigu. and can they a«uga till Y.'s will be 
proved ? A Subscudeu. 

23. Dower.— A. was married in 1332, and on tho 
death of bis moth*-r shortly afternards, he became 
entitled to cert liu freehold property aa devisee under 
her will. A. '8 wile is still alive, and ih clearly entitled 
to dower. Ui>on tbo death of A.'s wife, can her repre- 
sentatives niakti auy cLiim fur any arrears of dower, 
and if so, for what period ? B. W. 

21. Stamps of Articles of Clerkship. — Can any of 
your reaters inform me whether, unilcr sect. 43 of 
Si 6i, 31 Vict. c. 97| ortitjleB of clerkship can be stamped 

within six months of date and execution, without pay* 
ment of a penalty, as I am informed that iu a recent 
case a snhcitor having been misled by this section, de» 
laycd stamping articles till after the uate an<j execu* 
tion ; and, ibongh be meraonalised the cominis8ioner»- 
they declined to stamp without the penalty of A;1U. It 
tbuii appeitrs iu articles of cterkKhip ihat even the cos* i 
tomary two months grace for deeds is not allowed to- 
intervene without peualty. A. Rea-DEO. 

25. Trustees — Powebof Trustees to RkduoIntx- 
REsr ON Trust Fund.— Can tiny of jour correspondents 
give me au opintou as to whetber a trustee is or is not 
justiliablein reducing intecest on the trust fund, t^ay in 
cuse of a bond at 6 per cent, to 4 per ceut., without 
special authority lu the trust instrument so to uo ? My 
owu idea would be that if the circumntances of tbecAsa 
wonld justify a reasonable man doing so in bis own 
concerns, so would in siuiilar ciicumstnncea a trustee 
be justitiud. A reference to cofios decided or other 
authorities would oblige. Lex. 

26. RiQHT to Distrain.— a. is adjndioated a bonk* i 
rupt, aud the trustee iu bankruptcy takes poBseasion of 
his goods. Would they be conaidert-d to be in cu-ntodiS ' 
kjnX and tbo landlord of A. be ihereby debarred from, 
distraining upou them for reut ? Or coald the landlord 
distrain upou tbem by virtue of 32 Jic u3 Vict. c. 7I» 
B. 34, notwithstanding the rule tliat things iu th» 
custody of the Jaw cunnot be taken iu diutrebs ? and" 
what is the usual mode of proceeding in such a esse ? 

[The landlord has his right to distrain for a year's- | 
rent. — Ed. J 

27. Devise. — Does the following devise of trust and 
mortgage estate ciu'ry the fee? or is it limited simply 
to estates pur autrti ru, thereby rendering it necessarr 
to make an heir-at-law a party to the c >u\e. ance ? "IC 
devise au estate which at my death shall i e vested in* 
me for an estate pur uufro uin, which would devolve on 
my heir-, upou any trnots or by way of mortgage, and 
ol which I sbnll at my death have power to dispose by 
will uuto my trustees A. B., C. D., aud E. F., and 
their heirs upon the trusts, aud subject to the equities 
of redemptiou, which at my death shall bo i^ubsiBtingf 
and capable of taking effect therein rcspeetirely. 

B. W. 

(Q. 113.) Vendors and Purchasers Act. — I nam 
accountably overlooked kevt. t? of this Act. I do not 
think a couveyauce by an aduiiuistratrix under the Act 
cau be regarded as the exercist* of a power, for a power 
acts only on the use, and tbo word used ("couvoy") is 
inappropriate to designate the exercise of a power, but 
must reter to some kmd of estate. I should rather ba 
inclined — premising that the administratrix has tak4 
equitable estate iu the laud, subject to the equity of 
redemption (for the heir in to tbis extent a truotee for 
tho personal ropreseutative ol the moitiageo) — to 
rotrard it as a couveiauco of the -dmiiiistratrix's equi- 
tAble estate, upon which it is the inteui iou of the statutS 
that the legal estate shall vest In tho mortgagor by 
virtue of the statute, iu whiuh case no ackuowb dgment 
will be necessary ; or elsetocousid- r that at the moment 
of reconveyance, and not before, the equitable estate^ 
which exists only against the beir, is, as between her 
and the mortgngor, supplanted by the bare legal estate- 
divested irom tbe heir by the statut*^ and vested iu her. 
and in this case she can dispcn«e with acknowledgment 
under sect. 6. 1 am inclined to tbink the latter the 
right view, because all that tbe mortgagor wants to- ' 
restore him to his former positiuu is thu bare legf * 
estate: (Byth. Free. 5, 349, 41)8.) J. M. 

(Q. 7.) Deed— AcENOWLEDGMENT.— As the interest 
of the married women which will pass by tbo deed, is 
equitable and for their separate u»e, I do uot think 
there isany need for acknowletJgment: {Ttylor v. Meada^ 
L. C. 13 W. Jl, aWi 11 Jut. N. b. Itiy; Wms. Real Fr,» 
al8.) B. A. 

(Q. 11.) Sale OT Co PTH OLD.— The lord cannot compel 
B. to be admitted on A's surrender (exueit by special, 
custom) ; but A. continues tenant on tbe Rolls, audit 
he die hia beir must be admitud and p^y a bno, or the 
lord may seize 'juou.f^ue. B., however, cannot surren- 
der to C. until be bas been admiitwd, and it the lord 
should happen to admit C instead of ii., ou A's surrao- 
der, the admittauco would te void aud U. might aftec^ 
wards bo admitte'l. There must bo no variauee either 
iu tho person or estate, between tbe admiitance and 
surrender. "Copyhold" had better couhuU the steward 
of tbe manor, aud uot att«mpt by sharp practice to 
deimve the loni of hia fine. It. A. M. 

— Under <he priqjosed surrender, B. will gain 
notbinic. Tbe lord will uot admit C, until B. has bsan 
admitted aud has surrendered to C.'s use. if the lord 
will accept a surremtfir from A. to such ust-s aa B. shall 
appoiut, aud in default of appoiutmout to thu use of B., 
bis heirs and ansigns, B. may at auy subsequent time 
appoint tbe copyholds to a puruhas>;r, and tne lord will 
be bound to admit the purch.iser without the previous 
admittance of B. But there is no obligntiou on the 
l>rd to acce]>t such a surreUiler : (t'tackv.Thf MnMer Jkc* 
of Do\cninit CoUe<je C, P., 17 Jur. tiy? ; 13 0. B. 9*5; i 
Kfx. T. JVitf Lord of the Manor oj O'indl: 1 Ad. & E. 2»3t. j 
Wms. Real Pr. 371). I am unable to suggest any oth«r 
means of aToidlug the line. J. M. 


A MEETING of thin Bociety wai held in the Hnll 
Law Library, on Tuesday, the 10th iaet., W. F. 
GloTcr, Esq., in the chair. There was anarera^ 
attundanoe of membcra. The subject fur ilixuua- 
siOD was Sir Wilfrid Lairson's Poriaig.'iro Uill. 

Mr. Winter (who was supported by Mr. Dal^)- 
contended that it was desirable tbut the BUI 
(hoold become law; whilst Messrs. Jiabin^ton,. 

ied by 




[Nov. 21, 1874. 

McBride, and Lambert held to the contrary. 
After some remarka from Messrs, Taylor and 
Moore the Chairman summed up, and put the 
question to the meeting, when it was found that 
^e opponents of the Bill had a majority of 1 . 

The usual vote of thanks to the Chairman 
concluded the business of the meeting. 


Fkiday eveninff last week, Mr. Thomas Cousins, 
the president of the above society, delivered his 
inangural address to the members iu the Masonic 
Hall, Highbury-street, Portsmouth. The address 
■was to have been delivered in the previous week, 
but, owing to the indisposition of Mr. Cousins, it 
was unavoidably postponed (and on that occasion 
the chair was taken by Mr. R. W. Ford, the Vice- 
President, who delivered an interesting address 
to the students). He, however, apologised for 
tha delay, and then thanked the members for 
having elected him as president. It was very 
unexpected, but none the less appreciated by 
him, and he should discharge the duties with a 
very great deal of pleasure. He congratulated 
them on having formed such a society, as he be- 
lieved it was a step which was very necessary to 
be taken in this locality, and, if carried out in a 
proper manner, would prove very beneficial. 
Great changes had taken place in the Profession 
during the last half century. When he served 
his time, there were about half a dozen articled 
clerks in the town, but now they had about 
twenty. They formed themselves into a society, 
bnt frem various causes it fell through, but 
he had had the pleasure of presenting their 
secretary (Mr. Bramsdon) with the seal of it, 
which, curiously tnougn, was stamped with 
" The Portsmouth Law Students' Society," the 
name which they had chosen to adopt. ' He 
referred to the examinations, which as students 
in law they had to pass, and said that they were 
very necessary and useful, aa they tended to raise 
the standard of the Profession. He gave them 
Bome good advice as to how to proceed in their 
studies, and strongly recommended them to 
endeavour to secure some of the prizes which 
•were offered by the Incorporated Law Society. 
With regard to law lectures he did not place 
much value on them, althougli they, no doubt, 
imparted an occasional hint. The spending of 
the last year of their articles in London was very 
useful if they pursued their studies while there. 
He recommended them to attend the Judges' 
Chambers, and before the chief clerks in Chancery. 
He also strongly advised them not to leave their 
leading nntil the last year of their articles. The 
study of legal history, the constitutional law of 
the Eomans, civil law and ecclesiastical law, were 
also recommended to their study. Those who 
intended to cultivate the practice of an advo- 
cate shonld study maritime and naval law. 
Medical jurisprudence should also be a por- 
tion of their studies. He recommended them 
to pursue a methodical course of reading, and 
not wander from one book to another. With 
regard to public speaking, he thought it absolutely 
necessary for a solicitor in the present day. The 
solicitor who could speak well and fluently, and in 
a convincing manner, would gain great ascendancy 
over a solicitor who was not in a position to per- 
form that important duty. He thought a society like 
this eminently calculated to give that confidence 
which was necessary for young gentlemen when 
admitted into their profession. If this society 
were properly carried out many friendships would 
be formed amongst themselves, and those already 
formed conld not fail to be very much cemented. 
He also recommended them to study the law of 
evidence. He would sooner read Taylor's Law 
on Evidence than many of the novels of the 
present day, as it was a very entertaining book. 
A law library was much needed, as it was most 
lamentable that in a large town like this they had 
to depend mostly on text books. Ho hoped the 
day was not far distant when a law library would 
be established in the borough. The learned 
gentleman concluded by crawing the attention of 
those present to various matters connected with 
the profession, on which be gave them excellent 

On the motion of Mr. Dummer, seconded by Mr. 
Sims, a vote of Ihaika was accorded to Mr. 
Cousins for his address. 

The Chairman briefly replied to the compli- 
ment, and commended them for having selected 
such a gentleman as Mr. Serjeant Cox as the 
Honorary President of the society. 

At a meeting of this society, held on Tuesday 
evening last at 21, Chnrch.streot, the question 
under discussion was, " Is a husband entitled to 
curtesy cnt of lands settled to the separate use of 
his wife f " Mr. S. B. Auty occupied the chair. 
Mr. Henry Ashington opened the debate in the 
afiSimative, and was supported by Mr. Henry 

Auty. Mr. Frederick Stone and Mr. F. W. F. 
Brown conducted the negative. Several other 
gentlemen took part in the proceedings, and the 
subject was, after an animated discussion, decided 
in the afiirmative by a majority of one. 

The following is the report of the Parliamentary 
Committee to be read at the meeting to be held 
yesterday (Friday) : — 

The committee appointed to consider whether 
any and (if any) what steps should be taken "' for 
the amendment of the law relating to legal prac- 
titioners " beg to report that they held several 
meetings for that purpose in January and Feb- 
ruary last. At their first meeting your com- 
mittee, after a full discussion, unanimously re- 
solved : " That the existing law is insulScient 
for the effectual protection of the legal profession 
against the encroachments of unqualified persons, 
and recommends that further legislation be ini- 
tiated without delay." 

A bill, founded on this resolution, was draughted 
by your committee, and was introduced into the 
House of Commons bv the Honorary Treasurer 
of the society (Mr. W. T. Charley, M.P.) and 
Mr. Charles E. Lewis, M.P., on the earliest 
available day, the 20th March last. On the 23rd 
March a Bill to amend the Law relating to at- 
torneys and solicitors was introduced into the 
House of Lords by Lord Chelmsford, on behalf 
of the then vice-president (and now president) of 
the Incorporated Law Society. The object of 
this Bill was, first to obviate the hardships im- 
posed on articled clerks by the decision in Ex parte 
Cn-crilU (29 L. T. Kop. N. S. 5-12 ; 22 W. R- 160) ; 
and, secondly, to empower the Incorporated Law 
Society, as Registrar of Attorneys and Solicitors, 
to intervene, where an application is made by a 
third party to strike an attorney or solicitor off 
the rolls. This Bill was read a second time, 
without opposition, in the House of Lords on the 
27th March, was considered in committee and re- 
ported on the 30th March, and was read a third 
time and sent down to the House of Commons on 
the 14th April. 

A letter, signed by your honorary secretary 
(Mr. Charles Ford), appeared in the Times 
of the 6th April, urging that the Attor- 
neys' and Solicitors' Bill and the Legal Practi- 
tioners' Bill might, with advantage, be com- 
])rised in one statute. Your committee felt it 
their duty to support the suggestion of your 
honorary secretary, and accordingly Mr. Charley, 
in his place in Parliament, gave public notice 
that, on the motion for the second reading of 
the Attorneys' and Solicitors' Bill, he would 
move that it be referred to a select committee ; 
but, subsequently, finding that this notice was 
unacceptable to the promoters of that Bill, he 
withdrew it, and replaced it by a notice that, 
on the motion for the second reading of the At- 
torneys' and Solicitors' Bill, he would move that 
it be read a second time that day six months. 
This notice was not conceived in a hostile spirit to 
the Attorneys' and Solicitors' Bill, but was given 
with a view to postponing the second reading of 
that Bill until after the second reading of the 
Legall Practitioners' Bill, so that the two Bills might 
be considered pari passu. Mr. Lopes, Q.C., MP., 
who had charge of the Attorneys' and Solicitors'Bill, 
used every effort to obtain, but was unsuccessful 
in obtaining a hearing for it, and ultimately, being 
obliged to leave town to go on circuit, abandoned 
it. On the 8th July, Mr. Charley moved the second 
reading of the Legiil Practitioners' Bill, and after 
an animated discussion, the society's Bill was 
unanimously read a second time. The debate is 
very fully reported in Hansard, vol. 220, pp. 
1271-1281. On the same day Mr. Charley with- 
drew his opposition to the Attorneys and Solicitors 
Bill, and on the following day — 9th July — him- 
self moved the second reading of that Bill, 
which was carried n^m. con. On the 11th July 
Mr. Charley received a courteous commnnioation 
from the Vice-President of the Incorporated 
Law Societ}', agreeing to the amalgamation of the 
two Bills. In committee on the Attorneys' and 
Solicitors' Bill the portion of the Legal Practi- 
tioners' Bill which the law officers of the Crown 
had, on the second reading of the latter, accepted, 
was introduced into the former, and now forms 
sect. 12 of the Attorney.s' and Solicitors' Act 1874. 
Mr. Charley carried the Legal Praotioners' Bill 
through its remaining stages, leaving out in com- 
mittee that part of it to which the law officers of 
the Crown had objected. Mr. Marten. Q.C., M.P., 
carried the Attorneys' and Solicitors' Bill through 
its remaining stages in the Lower House. On the 
20th July the Legal Practitioners' Bill, aa amended, 
was read a third time and passed. It was sent up 
to the House of Lords and read a first time in that 
House on the following day, the day on which the 
Attorneys' and Solicitors' Bill, as amended, was 
read a third time in the House of Commons 
Every precaution was thug taken to insure the 
portion of the Legal Practitioners' Bill which had 
been accepted by the law oliicerg of the Crown 

passing into law, for it was sent up to the Honw 
of Lords in two Bills. 

Your committee regret that, while agreeing to 
accept the second reading of the Legal Practi* 
tioners' Bill,Her Majesty's Solioitor-General (Mr. 
Holker) declined to accept the principle of the 
3rd clause of that Bill, imposing a small bat 
easily recoverable penalty on unqualified peraoni 
drawing instrnments, the preparation of whidi 
by such persons was already forbidden, in expreu 
terms, by the Stamp Act 1870 (33 4 34 Viot. o. 
97, 8. 60). 

Your committee feel it their duty to direet 
special attention to the following passage in the 
Solicitor-General's speech : — 

" When they came to the definition of the woid 
' instrument,' they found it meant every di 
ment relating to real or personal estate, or 
any proceedings in law or equity ; but it did not 
include wills and testamentary documents, or 
powers of attorney. Under that provision, the 
contingency would arise that, perhaps, the v« 
best persons qualified for any particular worl 
might find themselves highly penalised : for ex> 
ample, an accountant who drew up a document 
for a man on the eve of bankruptcy, with reference 
to his bankruptcy, wonld be liable to a penalf 
ilO. Why that should be ho could not nni 
stand, as it was more the business of an accDuntasf 
than of an attorney, and he was more qualified 
than an attorney to transact it. Again, an 
auctioneer who prepared a document with r^rd 
to a sale of property would be subject to the same 
pejalty, and would not be able to recover the 
remuneration for his work. Ho thought it would 
bs most dangerous to sanction any provision 
leading to these results." 

Your committee feel that the society will unite 
with them in strongly protesting against the 
principles enunciated in the foregoing observa- 
tions of the Solicitor-General ; and desire to 
express their satisfaction that the council of the 
Incorporated Law Society have emphatically con. 
demned these principles. Mr. C. E. Lewis, in his 
reply to the SoUcitor-General, pointed out that 
" "The 3rd clause only embodied a principle that 
was contained in earlier statutes, and which wu 
substantially now the law of the land, as the CSth 
section of the 33 & 34 Viot. o. 97, showei." 

Your committee have observed with satisfaction 
that the new enactment which they framed and 
succeeded in passing has already been put in force 
in the city of Manchester. The following report 
of the first case under the new enactment is taken 
from the Law Times for Oct. 17, for which it WM 
specially reported. 

[Here follows the report.] 

Your committee rejoice to know that, in tho 
opinion of the Committee of the Manchester In- 
corporated Law Association, the most important 
of the Provincial Law Societies, the 37 & 38 Viot 
0. 68, B. 12, the principal clause of the Legal 
Practitioners' Bill is a valuable working measora. 

Your committee regret to have to record the 
death of one of their most active members, Mr. 
Henry Webster, solicitor, who took a loading part 
in framing the society's bill. 

Your committee cannot conclude their report 
without expressing their conviction that further 
legislation " for the amendment of the law relating 
to legal practitioners" is needed, in the intereab 
of tlie public as well as of both branches of the 

Signed on behalf of the Parliamentary Committee, 
J. SsTMOUH Salauak. 

Chairman of the CommittM. 


ir tM 

A MEETING of this society was held at Clement's- 
inn Hall, on Wednesday, ISth Nov. 1874, Mr. 
F.J. Baker in the chair. Mr. Wingfield opened 
the subject for the evening's debate, viz.: **I«i 
condition defeating a gift to a man on his second 
marriage good ?" The motion was carried by • 
majority of one. 

"The subject for next week's discnsEion ii, 
"That tho power given to the judges of dispeniing 
with the preliminary examination should be taken 
away." To be supported by Messrs. W. Girling 
and Kisbey. To be opposed by Messrs. Daviee 
and Collyer, B.A. 


NoTK.—TliiB department of the Law TiaiEfL is contrlbnt*! 
by Edward Walfohd. M.A., and Into scholar of BaUiw 
CoUego, Oxford, and Ke!l(»\v uf the Geneaioffiotl »n» 
Historical Societr of Great Britain ; and. as it u deriitd 
to moke it a« perfect a rocord as pojitiible. tbn families ud 
fricnda of deceased members of the Profession will oblis* 
bx forwarding to the Law Timks Office any dat« v» 
materials required for a biographical notice. 

The late John Wilcoxon Booth, Ksq., bamittf- 
at-law, of 44, Camdon-aqnare, Camden Town, who 
died on the 19th ult., at Toignmouth, Deronshir*, 
after a short illness, was born about tho year 1831 
He waa called to the Bar bj thtf Houooiable 

Nov. 21, 1874. J 



Society of the Middle Temple in Trinity Term 
1858, and praotised as an equity draftsman and 
conveyancer at his chambers in New-eqnaro, 
Lincoln's Inn. Mr. Rooth married a Miss Smith, 
of Jersey, by whom he has left a family of two or 
three children. 

Iks late Hon. William Knox Pomeroy, barrister- 
at-law, who died somewhat suddeuly on Sunday, 
the Ist inst., in the sixty.Recond year of his a^e, 
was the youngest son of John, fonrth Viscount 
Harberton, and uncle of the present peer ; his 
mother was Esther, eldest daughter of the late 
^^^•mes Spencer, Esq., and he was bom in the year 
^^bl3. He was educated at Trinity College, Dublin, 
^^nrhere he took his bachelor's degree in 1834, and 
' was inoorporatod in 1&40 at Magdalen Hull, Ox- 
ford. He was called to the Bar oy the Honoura- 
ble Society of the Middle Temple in Trinity Term 
1S4-1. According to Lodge's Peerage, Mr. Pomeroy 
I faiBlJTed and died nnmarried. 

The lato George Gwyu Elger, Esq., barristar-at- 
law, who died on the 3l8t ult., at his residence, 
Bricklehampton Hall, Pershore, Worcestershire, 
in the forty-fifth year of his age, was the only son 
of John Elger, Esq., of Kemp Town, Brighton ; 
his mother was Catherine, daughter of George 
Inskip, Esq., of Caldocot, Bedfordshire, and he 
was born in the year 1830. He was edncated at 
Trinity College, Oxford, where he graduated 
B.A. in 18.52, and proceeded M.A. in 1853 ; and he 
wu called to tho Bar by the honourable society 
of Ijncoln's Inn in Hilary Term 185G. Mr. 
Elger, who was a magistrate for tho county of 
Worcester, married in 18.')2 Miss Elizabeth 
Ha^don, daughter of Thomas Haydon, Esq., of 
Qmldford, Surrey, by whom he has left a family. 


V Jnsti 
~ 30th 

Sm J. BOWE, C.B. 
lato Sir Joshna Rowe, C.B., of Torpoint 
Boose, near Devonport, Cornwall, formerly Chief 
Justice of tho Island of Jamaica, who died on the 
30th ult., at his residence in Queen Anno-street, 
CaTondish-sqnare, in tho seventy-eighth year of 
hii age, was the son of the late Joshua Bowo, 
Esq., of Torpoint House, Cornwall, and was born 
in the year 1797. Ho entered as a student of tho 
Inner 'Temple in 1818, was called te tho Bar by the 
Honourable Society of the Inner Temple in 1S24, 
and in 1832, shortly after the rebellion of the 
slaTOS, he was appointed Chief Justice of Jamaica, 
and Chief Judge of the Supreme Court of Judica- 
tareof that island, on which ocoaaion he received 
the honour of knighthood. In 1835 he was 
appointed judge of the Vice-Admiralty Court ; ho 
wu also a member uf the Legislative Council in 
Jamaica. Sir Joshna retired from the Bench on 
a well-earned pension in 1356. He married in 
1823, Frances Ann, daughter of James Bato, Esq., 
oiSt. Leonard's, near Exeter. 


Mb. H. p. Wicks, of Coekermonth, solicitor, baa 
boen appointed by the Lord Chancellor a Commis- 
Bioner to administer oaths in Chancery, in 

Mr. T. G. Reid, 2nd elaas clerk, Solicitor and 
Controller General's Department, has been pro- 
moted to be Ist class clerk; Mr. J. C. Patereon, 
3rd class clerk, Solicitor and Controller General'* 
Department, to be 2nd class clerk ; Mr. G. Millar, 
3rd class clerk. Solicitor and Controller General's 
Department, to be 2nd class clerk ; Mr. T. C. 
Addis, 4th class clerk, Solicitor and Controller 
Genend's Department, to be 3rd class clerk ; Mr. 
W. Andrews, -Ith class clerk. Solicitor and Con- 
troller General'ii Department, to be 3rd clai-s 
clerk; Mr. R. Poorch, Joint Magistrate and Deputy 
Collector, Rungpore, has been appointed to act as 
Uagiatrate and Collector of Noakhell> during the 
absence on leave of Mr. L. B. R. King ; Mr, G. H. 
Atkinson, Assistant Miigistrate and Collector, 
Bograh, has been transferred to Cnttack ; Mr. 
J' J. Livesay, acting Joint Magistrate and 
Deputy Collector, let grade. Maldah, to Burneah ; 
Mr. A. T. Maclean to bo District and Sessions 
Judge of the 24 Perguunahs ; Mr. W. Macpher- 
Bon, on furlough, to be District and Sessions 
Judge of Bungpore; Mr. T. Walton to be Addi- 
tionJU Judge and Additional Sessions Judge of 
Dacca, Backergunge, Chittagong, and Tipperah, 
with headquarters at Furreedpore, continuing to 
act as District and Sensions Judge of Dacca ; Mr. 
C. F. Manson, Extra Assistant Commissioner, to 
be Assistant Settlement Officer for the Sonthal 
Pervunnahs; Mr. P. Whalley, officiating Joint 
Magistrate and Deputy Collector, to officiate as 
Magistrate and Collector of Moradabad duricgthe 
I on leave of Mr. B. H. CUfford. 


^roftssional partnerships ^issolbtb. 

Gazette, Nov. G. 
WitiTE. Oeorie, and Franklin, Johnveasey, sttomeys and 
solicitors, Epttuin, oud Tunfleld-ct, Templo. Nov. 3 

Gazette, Nov. 10. 
Vandercom. Law, TTardy, and Aston, atUtmoysand Bolloltor?. 
Bush-la (Heno' Bli^nhard Lnw, Joha Churles Hardy, and 
Frederick Tucker A.50oii). Nov. 2 


Gaxette, Nov. 13. 

To surrender at'the Bankrupts' Court, Ba^iInffhaU'Rtrcet. 

Bexxett. Thomak Harold, and Bennett, Frederick, mor- 

chitnw. St. Oeorgo's-rd, Southw^rk ; Kxmouth-Ht, Clurkenwell ; 

and Edgwore-rd. Pet. Nov. U. Ueg. Spring- Rioo. Sur. Nov. 9S 

To Burrendor in the Country. 
Marten, William HAmH,wooLstaplcr. Bradford. Pet. Nov. 10. 

Jlvg. Tlobif]«oii. Sur. Nov. 2* 
MAirNDER. William Dail. silversmith, Tiverton Pet. Nov. lo. 

Reir. Daw. Sur. Nov. aS 
TntriiRON. Richard, and TnrBnox, Matthew Hf.xry. mer. 

chjint*. South Shields. Pot. Nov. 10. Rojf. Mortimer Sur. 

Nov. 'il 

Gazette, Nov, 17. 

To flurrender at tho Bankrupts' Court, Biuiln^holl-streot. 

CLSfiHORN, JosEi'ir JOHN, licensed victualler, Carnaby-Bt, 

CKildun-rt*!. Pet. Nov, H. Reir. Hiuilltt. Sur. Nov. 27 
FlTCH. HENRy ALFRED, wholei^iilo supir detiler. Little Towor-st. 

Pet. Nov. n. Rejr. Rr-che. .Sur. Dec. :t 
Hart, David, iind White, Oeoroe, wine merchant*!, Ooorge^t, 

T'jwer-hlll. Pet. Nov. 4.. Re». Roche. Sur. Doo. 3 
OXHLOW. HARRIET LouisA, widow. Bu rllnffton-rd. Boyswater. 

Pet. Nov. i;i. llntf. Iloche. Sur. Dec. 3 
Sl'RV, Jambs, com inorohunt, Uiiion-rd, Botherbithe. Pet. Nov. 

V2, Reg. Uazlltt. Sur. Dec. 3 

To surrender In tho Country. 
AsHTON, Gboroe, and EvAN.*. William, provlMon merchants. 
Liverpool. Pet. Nov, 14. Betf. Watson. .Sur. Nov. SO 

Cave, George, builder, Tunbridxo. Pet. Nov, is. Rcgr. Crlpps. 

Sur. Nov. 2ri 
Jackson, George, grocer, Sunderland. Pot. Nov. II. Beg. Ellla. 

Sur. Nov. ail 
LocKTER. Henry, awddler, Westerham. Pet. Nov. 13. Beg. 

CrlppB. Sur. Nov. 28 
Malcolm, Alexander. forwardlnfiRiront, Kingston-upon-Hull. 

Pet. Nov. V2. nea. Phillips. Sur. Nov. 28 
MiNTON, John, poulterer, Mortlake. Pet. Nov. 10. Hog. WIl- 

loujfhby. Sur. Dec. i 
Plant, Thomas, oiirthenware dealer, Neath, Pet. Nov. 14. Reg. 

Morgan. Sur. Due. I 


Gazette, Nov. 6. 
HODOEfl, Jahks Clifford, gentleman, Marlboro ugh -rd, St. 

Jotin's-wood. and Mltr«}-ot. July 23, 1874 
BouiNSON. Bawdon Briggs, Rurgoon, Dulverton. Juno 15, 1874 

Gaxetie, Nov. 10. 
Haivswokth, Joseph Fi^uer, manufucturer, Ossett. July 23, 

Gazette, Nov. 13. 
Fawcett. Thomas, X'pper Brixton -rise, Brixton, Aujr. 10, 1874 
Harris, William, lunkeoper, Biocklcy. Aug. 11, 1B74 

^iqmbattons bg ^rtRngemenU 


Gaxette, Nov. 13. 

Al.LMAN". Samuel, boot and shoe maker. Middlesbopough. Pet. 

Nov. 60. Nov. as, at one, at office of Sol. Dobson, Middles- 
Arnold. Richard, builder, Sumner-rd, Peckham. Pet, Nov. 4- 

Nov. 23, at three, ntofBce of Scil. Terry, Kintr-ftt. Chenpslde 
Barnek. Edv^-ard Hknrt, wine merchant. TewkoHDur>-. Pet, 

Nov. 10, Nov. 27, at eleven, at office of SoU. Muores and Romnuy, 

Bahry, William Barxett, draper, Leeds. Pet. Nov. 0. Dec. 

1. at three, at office of Sol. Craven, Leeds 
Bell, Pattison, and Bbll. Jobs, eontrnotoni, Buiy. Pet. Nov. 

9. Nov. 2it. (It three, atoffioe of Sol. Anderton. Bury 
BLacklock, David, draper. Middleaborough. Pet. Nov. 10. Nov. 

as. at twelve, at the Queen's hotel, WeUlDgton-st, Leeda. SoL. 

Dobson, Mlddleaborough 
BOWEN. BicHARD. vtcttuLller. Shrewsbory. Pet. Nor. 11. Nor. 

S8, at eleven, at tlie Oeorsre hotel. Market^at, Shrewsbury 
Brawn, Hexry. out of boslness, Wunlesii-rd, Cnmberwetl. Pet. 

Nov. 4. Nov. '23, at three, at ofHoe of Sols. Button and Co., Ben* 

riettn-st. Covent-gardon 
Brown, John Ecles, cashier, LtvensooL Pet. Nov. 9. Nor. 36 

fit one, at office of Sol. Quelch, Liverpool 
Bkown, Richard, linen draper, Halifax. Pet. Not. 9. Nov. 27, 

nt clovun, ut the Homo Trade Asaoolatlon roomt*. Tork-st, Mun- 

che!«ter, Sol«. Wavell, Phllbrick, Foster, and Wavell 
Bbundlr, THOMA8, tailor. Wrentham. Pet. Nov. 10. Nov. 27, at 

eleven, at office of Sol. Watt«, Ipswich 

Bunker. John Lancelot Caswell, cosch b<illder, Southgato. 

Pet. Nov. 10. Nov. 38, at two, at 53, Cluucery-la. Sol, 

BrRCtOVNE, Jonx, victualler, Leomtn?«tor. Pet, Nov. 11, Nor. 38, 

at two, at tho Greyhound Inn. Sol. Andrews, Leominntor 
Chapman, Joseph, commercial traveller, St-inhope-st, Hamp- 

fltead-nl. Pet. Nov. 7. Nov. 24. at a quartor-pust ten, at office 

ot J<i)in R<iwlnnd. 123, Globc-rd, MUe-end. Sol. Hleks, AnnLs-rd, 

South Hackney 
CLAKt^soN. WILLIAM ALFRED, cabinetmaker, Hodnesford. Pet. 

Nov. ti. Nov. 21, at eloTen, at office of SoL Barrow, Wolverhanip- 

Collier, Jortx Henry, oomntflslon agent, WolwrhAmpton and 

WtKlnoHburv. Pet. Nov. II. Nov, 38, at on*, at offico of SoL BUI. 

COOKMAX, TnoMA.1. lodglng-bouao keepor, Torrlngton-iq. Pet. 

Oct. SO. Nov. 19, at three, at office of Sol. Llnd, Serle-st, Un- 

CORDERY. ARTHUR, plumber. Watford. Pet. Nov. 7. Doc 7, at 

tliree, at!*. King Edward-st, N<;^^ trate.<t. Sol. Miles 
COUZEX!*, BENJAMIN, clothler, Liverpool and W«vertr«o. Pot. 

Nov, 11. Deo. 2. at two. at office of Sol, Croaler, Liverpool 
Co.\, JAME8, dealwr, Handsworth. Pet. Nov. 3. Nov. 21, at twelve, 

BtufTlcwuf Sol Ftillows, UlrnitiiKhHin 
Cox. TuoMAf*, hatter, Leloo*t«r. Pet. Nov. 10. Nov. 2a, at twelve. 

at office n( t^nl4. Fowler. Smith, and Worwtok, Leloeater 
CRAWFORD. Henry, nail m:iker. ISidemoor. m^r Bromsgrove. 

Pet. Nov. 5. Nov. aR, at eleven, at office of Sol. Eoden, Binning. 

hum. ^__ 

CuNDlCK. Albert WILLIAM, mason, Warminster. Pet. Nov. 9. 

Nov. 2>. at one, ut office of SoU. Chapman and Ponting, War< 

DAY, JAMRI4 Henry, hatter, Birmingham, DowlaU. and Morthyr 

Tydfil. Pet. Nov. lU. Nov. 24, at three, atoffiooof SoL Parry, 

Drepoe, Joseph, uphulntercr, Pro«p*ct-hUI. Pet. Nor. lO. Nov. 

2il. at twelve, at tho Guildhall ooffefr house. Gr«>*ham-st 
Evans. John, bookbinder, Machynlluth. Pet. Nov. 10. Nov. SB, 

»t twelve, at office of SoL Jones. Aber>*swlth 
EvAXs. JOHN, shoemaker, Warwick. Pet. Nov. S. Nov. 19, nt 

twelve. lit the Globe hotel, Warwick. Sol. Sanderson, Warwick 
Fowler, John, plumber. Thome. Pet. Nov. 21. Nov. 77, atone. 

at otncr f.t Sill. Berwick, Bwdfonl-njw 
Freeman. Kdward. (-.riiier, Cre<?tlne All Sainti. Pot. Nov. 9. 

Dfct;. 4, lit twulvo, ■■ ■' ' "" M, Bury St. Edmunds. SoU. 

M<*f<ri<. SHiinon, D;:' i- 

FlHLKV. Felix, tini illng-hlU. Pet. Nov. 7. Nov. 

2t. nt twrlvf, >\l onu > ' ->ltl>ion,audNiney,!KI, Cheap- 

Kidf. .^■■1. Nichols, .Ltj -Mill fields 
CoODcHlLH, J^ME*. Intrinionk'tT. U:Udoek. Pet. Nov. 1 1. Nov. 

3>i, nt one. lit nm^-i- ■)f W. shirp. in-oountant, 62, CorahiU. SoU. 

UoUe, Trustram,aQd Co-, Cheapslde 

GREENWOOD. James, doctor of medicine, Canonburv-sq. Isllng- 
um. P.rt. Nov.O. Nov. 23. at ton, atofflce of Sol. NlchoUs.Lln- 

Hamilton. AufJUSTua Maitland Roxald, lieutenant In tha i 

royal navy, Portsmouth. Pet. Nov. 0. Nov. 25, at four, at office 

of Sol. King, Portsea 
Hazeldine, Charles, eating-house keeper, Bath. Pet. Nov, 10, 

Nov. 2^, at eleven, at office of Sol. Wilton. Bath 
Hodosox, Thomas Stephenson. bookMllcr. D(flsj»bury, Pot. 

Nov. 10. Nov. a\ at eleven, at office of Sol. Walker 
Hooper, Tuomah. earthenware dtMier. Birmingham. Pot. Nor. 

10. Nov, 2.>, at three, nt office of Sol. Purry, Birinlnsham 
Howard, Harrison, innkeeper, Collyweaton. Pet. Nov. lU 

Deo. 1, at twelve, at office of Sol, Stspleton, Stamford 
Howlett, Alfred, baker, Greonwloh-rd. Pet. Nov. 5. Nov.SC . 

Mt throe, at office of Sols. MemirB. Rcnrd, GrAccehuroh-st 
HuOHKa, Benjamin, Btoncmason. Halton. Pet. Nov G. NoT.3% ' 

nt three, atofflce of of Sols. Ashton and nnmitt, Runcorn 
HUNTER. Thomah Edwards, tailor. Hh»-ltleld. Pet, Nov. 7. Nor, i 

23, at three, at office of Snl. Crang, SheffleM 
JONES. HUGH, farmer, Rallt, in Llandlsllto. Pet. Nov.;9. Nor, 1 

2S. at two. nt the victoria hotel, Menai-brldge. Sol. Jones* i 

JONE8, William, sen., and Joxeh. William, Jun., carpenten. 

Blakeney, Ui Awre. Nov. 3.%, at twelve, at the Victoria hotel, 

Newnham. Sola. Messrs. Tavnton 
KEBflHAW, JAHR8 FREDERICK, dentlH, Quick View, Saddlo- 

worth. Pet, Nov. 10. Nov. 35, at tltree, at office of SoU. , 

Buckley and Clugg, Oldham J 

Laidlaw, William, draper, Leed«. Pet. Nov. 7. Nov, 25, ai ] 

eleven, ut office of SoU. Rooko and Mldglcy, Leeds 
Latter, Thomam Philip. Latter, oeoroe James, and I 

Latter. Louis Auolphus, uph'>I«teren'. I'ortsinoath. Pet. ] 

Nov, 6. Nfiv. 23, at half-papt one, nt the Chamber of Commoroo^ ] 

MS, Choapnlde. Sol. Ford. PortRmouth i 

LowTHER. James, wtne merchant, ■RriHt')!. Pet. Nor. 10. Not, 

2'>. nt two, at oinceH of Denning. Smith, and Co,, accountant^ J 

KhAnnonct. Com-et« Bristol. SoU. Fusscll, Priehard. anal 

Swann. Brixtol T 

MAooi*. Samcel Palmer, plumber, Clifton, In BrtHtoL Pot. 

Nov. 11. Nov. 21, at one, at office of Sol. Baaery, Brt«tol i 

Mawbey, Alfred, sewing machinist, Edmvaro-rd. Pot. Nov. 8. 

Nov. 2rt. at three, at office of Sol. DavU, Hoorgate-st 
McCarthy, Timothy Richard, ship broker, Bftrrow-In-Piir- 

ne«8. Pet. Nuv. U. Nov. 27, at cloven, at the Ship Inn, Bar^ 

row-in.Fumeas. SoU. Uradahaw and Pearson, Barrow-ln<Fur> 

Mkllowes. Thomas, currier, Mayorhold. in Northampton. Pet* J 

Nov. 9. Nov. 23, at twelve, at office of R, Howes, Ablngtou-sb* J 

Northampton. Sol. Perelval. Tnwcenter " 

Nicholson, James, farmer, Beckcnham. Pet.»-Nov. 4. Deo. I« * 

at three, at office of Sol. Jenkins, Tnvi«tock-st, Covcnt-gdn l 

Nrsx. Terrell, beerhouse keeper, Tyrrell AmiM. Nunheod-laneg I 

Peckham-rve. Pet. Nov. U. Nov. 28. nt two. nt the Wulbrook ' 

Entate Exchange, Walbrook. Sol Hill, Mfncimrln 
NUTTALL, Thomas, stonemason, ElUjn within Burj-. Pet. NOT. 

9. Nov, 38, at three, at office of SoU. Mea-^r^. Grundy, Bury 
ORAM. JOHN, bnker, Bath. Pet. Nov. il. Nov. 27, at eleven, aft 

office of 8(>]». Simmons and Clurk. Bnth 
Ord. ItouEHT, and PURVia. James, UHora. Berwick-on-Tweed. I 

Pvt. Nov. 11. Nov. 2J, at half-past two. at the RedLlonbotctU I 

flerwick-on-Tweed. Sol. Dnugltis. Berwick y 

Ohrorx, THftMA.f. baker, Olney. Pet. Nov. 9. Nov, 28, at throe, 

Btom&> of Sol. Bull, Olney 
OwEN?t, Francis Firth, tailor, Cwmbwrla. Pet. Nov. 10. Not. , 

',a>. at three, at office of Sol. Wooilwar'i, .Swnn-^e,* 
Pahrv. John, buildt-r, Liverpool. Pet. Nov. ii. Nov. 90, aft L 

tlircc'. at office of Glb.<4on and BolUnd, |10, South JohnJrt«.| 

Liverpool, Sol. Stephenson, Liverpool * 

PicKEXS, Samuel, painter, Hulme. Pet. Nov. 9. Nov. 25, 

three, ot office of SoL Heywood, Manchester 
Rrvis. JOHNOharlE;!. farmer, Shefford. Pet. Nnv. 9. Not. 9^ I 

nt one. at the Whito Hart hotel, ShelTord. SOL Conquest 1 

Bedford 1 

RICHARDSON. William, grocor, Mlddlesbnroutrh. Pet. Nor. l%i 

Nov. 21. at one, at office of Sol. Dobf>on, Middli-sborotigh 

Oaweatiy. Pet, Nov. 5, Nov. 23, at two. at office of the BonMl 

Trade Aasocfation, 8, York.«t, Manchester. Sol. Donli^ 1 

Oewestry J 

RoBiN.^ON, Oeoroe, shoemaker, Hartebome. Pet Nov. 8. Not. I 

21, nt half p.i«t three, at the Lamb ton, Aahby-do-Ia-ZouclU ] 

Sol. Smith. Rwndlinooto I 

Sandbrji, IIKNHY FREDERICK, tallor, Hlgh-gt. Stoke N^-wlngton, 1 

Pet. Nov. i>. Nov. 21, nt twelve, nt offlco of F. W. Morphett* 3 

bankruptcy accountant, •'i5, Moorgatc-st. Sol. Eiirlo, 5, Chariot- J 

SAYElLf, William, needle maker. Greet, near Birmingham. J 
Pet. Oct. 29. Nov. 20, at Uireo, at offloo of Sol. Simmon^ I 
Roddltch f 

Smith. William, Jnx., commission agent. Nottinfrhnm. Pet. I 
Nov, 7. Nov. 2t>, at eleven, at office of Sol. Black. Nottingham I 

8X0W, BEXJAMlN^armer, Great Waltham, Pet. Nov, II. NOT. | 
27. at one, at the White Hart inn. Chclmfiford 

SOPER, James, steward In tho royal nnvy, L;indport. Pet. Nor. ' 

11, Deo. 5, at eleven, at office of J. Wainscot, 9, Cnion.|' 
Port#ea. Sol. Walker, Landport 

SyLVESTER, William Thomas Maixwarixo. rector of Caatl 

ford. Pet, Nov. 9. Nov. 24, at eleven, at tho Bull hotat ' 

Wakefield. Sol. Carter, Pontefraet 
Thomas, David, innkeeper. Llanedy. Pot. Nov. 5, Nov. as, at 

three, at the Cross Inn hotol. Cross Inn, par. Llundebie. SoL. 

Bishop, Llandllo 
Thompson, James, turf dealer. Speel Bank, near Haverthwalt^. ^ 

Pet. Nov. n. Nov. at, at two, ut the Temperance ball, Ulverstoa 

Sol. Poole, Ulveraton -i 

TUNE, William, Innkoopor, MUterton. Pet. Nov. 9. Not. 3% ] 

at eleven, at ofBco of Sol. BJodon, Ooinsboroogh 1 

Ward, William, commlsalon agent. Danby. Pet. Not. II. 1 

Deb. 2, at one, at office of Messra. HonkhouJM, Goddard, and ' 

Miller, accountants, Nicholas buildings, Newcastle. &ot. 

Thornton, Whitby 
Webu. Robert, farmer, Crowborough. Pet. Nov. 9. Nov. 2^ at 

one, ut office of Sol. Savory, Hastings 
Wells. William, grooor's aosUUnt, Worcester. Pet. Nov. IL 

Nov: 23. at throe, st offlc* of Sol. Tree, Worceeter 
Whallet. MaiuiaIIKT, widow, dropor, Sneinton. Pet. Not. 9. 

Nov. 2^ Ht twelve, at office of Sol, Acton, Nottineham 
Wrioht. John, and WRumT, Henry, timber merchanU, Oldest 

Shoredlteh. rind Pownailrd. DaUton. Put. Nov. 11. Nov. 28, U | 

elcvtn. nt office of SoU. Blake and Snow, Collegc-hlll, Cannon-s 
Wkioht, William, general Munchc«U'r wHrehouneman, Loodl. 1 

Pot. Nov. 7. Nov. 21, at three, at office of Sola. Maasrs. N(»tlb ] 

L««ls ^ 

TouNo, Alfrkd. lato glass manufacturer, Leeds. Pot. Mor.V 

Not. SS, at two, at office of SoL Harlo, Leeds 

QasetU, Nov, 17. 


AXGCLL, JAMBS WALTER, tftUor, Bath. Pot. Nov. 13. Not. sot 

at twelve, at office of SoL Rlukotts, Bath 
Armhtrono. John, tailor, Manchester. Pet. Nov. IS. Doo, 1, at 

Uiree. at offices of Sols, Smith and Bover, Manchester 
Baoos, William, blacksmith. FrogsfitUd-irreen. In par. ot Proga- 

flaUl. Pet. Nov. 14. Doa 2, at two. at office of SoU. Uarvoy xaji , 

Addison, Petorsflcld I 

Baoshawe, John James, steel manufacturer, Sheffield, Pe|^ 1 

Nov. 13. Nov. 27, at eleven, at the Albert Muslo Hall, Barkor's* | 

j>ool. Sheffield. Sol. Woke. 
Barber, William, son., saddler. ShetTord. Pot. Nor. 13. Kar. 

ao, at eleven, at tho County Court Offloo, Blggleswoda. Sola. 

Hooper and Raynes, Blfgleawade 
Barker, Josipu, yeaat ooalor, Birkonhoad. Pet. Nov. 11. Not. 

37, at tw^ at offloo of Sol. Downhun, Bbrkenhead 
Barrow. John, provision dealer, Cuduell, Charlton KInirs. Pat. 

Nov. 12. Nov. 30, at three, at office of Sol. Boodle, Cheltonhom 
BbxXETT, John, registrar. Cheltenham. Pot. Nov. n. Deo. U I 

at eleven, at office of SoL Choashyre. Cheltenham L 

Best, Thomas Walsh, bruah manufacturer, Bolton. Pot^i 

Nov. 13. Dec. I. at three, at the Falstaff hotel,»l 

Manchester. Sol. Dawaon, Bolton 
Bland. Oeoroe. wonted spinner. Balldon Bridgo Mill, 

Shipley. Pet. Nov. 13. Nov. 2B, at ten, at offices of SoU. Wood 

and KUllck, Bradford 
Booth, Oeorok Edmund, bnlldor, Oldham. P'-t. Nov. is. 

Nov. 30, at three, at offloei of Sols. Murray and Wrlgley, Old- 
Booth, Waltbb. 00m merchant. Tictorla-rd, Rorblton. Pet. , 

Not. 13. Nov. 30, at two, at the Southampton Hotel. Surbltoa. ' 

Sol. DonniUiomo 
Bradbury. Charles Wrioht, aaddlor, Soddleworth. Pot, 

Nov. 12. Dea 2, at half-post three, at the uars and Hounds inik 

Upper Mill, near Greanfleld, Saddleworth. Sola. Toy and 


Fed by 




[Nov. 21, 1874. 

Bbyan. Edwin, farmer, Coldofilitan. Pet. Nov. 12. Nov. 28, at 

eleveu. at 3, Mll<MVhldffa. BriUi. S.)ls. Gill imd Bush 
Clark, RiciiAitn. butcher, Britrg. I'et. Nov. 13. Dec. 3, at one, 

Rt offlce ot Si»l. Robba 
CODB, John, trardpner. Sandy Combc-lfl, Twickenham. Pet. Nov. 

14. Dt'c. 0, a. two. lit otTlre of Sol. n;4ync:«, Greolau-chambers, 

Devereux-ct, Tomple, und Wandswortli 
COBLEY. William OEM PTON, Klncrston -upon -Hull, Pet. Nov. 7, 

Nov. 23, atthrsfi. at oflice of Sol. Summent. Hull 
CocKiNo. John Tonkin, and Mitchell, Stephen, hat manu- 

factiirors. Ponzancft. Pet. Nov. 13. Nov. 30, ut thref, at offlce 

of Solt, Jtodd and Cornish, Pfiiizunco 
OoE, Bknjamis ALUkrt, niariiifacmror, Calverlny. Pot. Nov. 

U. Nov. JH. iir. ten. at office of Sol. Nelll. Bradford 
COUEN, .Tal-ub Hahman. BohoolmHBter, Britrhton. Pet, Nov, 12, 

Biic 7, at three, at offlce of Sol. Hnwell, Cheiip.4lde, London 
CONROY, Lewih. buker. Old Kent-rd, Pot. Nov. 9. Nov. 'J5, at 

four. Ht ofHcGB of Bej^Iey and Grey, publio acoountautA, Klug- 

st, ChwHpsido. Hoi. Liiv, Poultry 
Cbo^.slf.y, William, innkeeper, DarrioR-ton, nr. Pontefrict. 

Pet. Nov, 11. Nov, 3S, at three, at the Rt^d Lion hotel, Ponte- 

fruct. Sola, Stocks and NcUleton. Wakefield. 
CBrtTCH. Levy, jfooeral dewlfir, Newport, Pet, Nov. 13, Jfov. 30. 

at eleven, at offlce of 8ol, Gibbs, Newport 
Davies. JOHN, plumber, nuddinjfton Pet. Nov, 11. Dec. 2, at 

twelve, «t nfflco of Soi, PurbonB, Notttncham 
Saviem. John, fener*d draper. Pentre, m par. of yptradvfoawjr. 

Pet. Nov. 12. Nov, 28, at two, ut offlce of Messra. Al»;xiiuder, "ti, 

St. Mary-at, Cardiff, Sul, Thomas 
Deane. Patrick, coniml&sii^n ttjrfnt. KlnfrBt/in-upon-ETull. Pet, 

Nov, 12. Nov, 30, at twelvf.nt office of Sol, RoborLHiind Leak. 
Downing. William. dealer. Leeds. Pet. Nov, la. Nov. 

30, at two, Ht offlce of Sol, SlmpsKjn und Burrell. 
XDWAKDrt, TuoMAH, jun, attorney and Bolicitor, Olenarm-rd, 

Lower Clapton. Pet, Nov. IX Nov, 30, at two, at officeR of 

Sola. Irwin and Cock, Gray's Inn-sq 
Bl*IorT,HENttYCHARLE.s, attorney, Thanet-p], Strand. Pet. Nov. 

9. Nov. 24, At thn>«-. at office of .Sol. CbJdloy. Old Jewry 
Elliott, Jame.-*, brewer. Wlnlaton, Pet. Nov. 14. Nov. 28, at 

eleven, Kt oftleo of Sol. Hopper. Newcastle-upon-Tyne 
Tletciikr. William. trr*>otT, Ipswich, Pet. Nov. 12. Dec. 4, at 

twelve. Ht office of S-il. PoUar<l. Ipswich 
PnANcis. Charles Eknest. chomlr^t, liulme, near Manchester, 

Pet. Nov. 13, Nov. JO, ut three, at offices of Sols. Bideal and 

Shaw, Munchet^ter 
Pbederkinw Geouoe Henry Richard. oomTnlBBlonmerohaut, 

Anifle-s^y Villa, Prospectpl, Kllburn. Pet. Oct. .^I. Nov. ac, at 

«lt*veD. ut office of Sol. Uimd. Eoxtchoap 
^AUn. Isaac Montromehy, (ccntleman. Midland Hotel Railway 

Station. EusI,on-rd. In p;ir. of St. Pancra.-!. Pet. Oct, i». Nov, 2(1, 

at twelve, at olRce of Sol, Gniyson, Hunter-st. Bninswlck-sq 
Garland, Auguhtdh Henry, Rentlt;m.-m, Cbeckendon. Pet. 

Nov. 10. Dec. 8, at three, at ofBcea of tiolf. Chappoll and Sun, 

GlBB», Alfhed. drucfriKt. Luton. Pet. Nov. 13. Dec. 3, at half- 
past ten, Ht office of Sol Novo, Luton 
GLAflHB, JosiAH Edward, and Glasse, Thomas Allan, ens- 

flttera, Ruffurd'ft-row. Upper-st, I^UneUin. Pot. Nov. ill, Dec. 

a, at two, Ht thf offlees of Banes. Weaver's Hall, Bosinghall st. 

BoL M»»on, North-bldg-. Fin»l.ur>' 
Goods, Samuel'William, jt?wi*ller,Blrmtneham. Pet. Nov. 11. 

Deo. I, at twclvt-', at olllci! of Sol, Griffin, Birmint'ham 
GOODHALL, (Benjamin, contractor, Apperiey-bridKC, Pet, Nov, 

P. Nov, 27, at three, at ofHce of SolH, Mosanian and Halty, 

<1R1FFITH, Reeh Hohrir. denier In oils, BrldHn^rton. Pet. Nov, 

10, Nov. 30, at thre*', ut the Black Lion hotel, BridllnKton. Sol. 
Cooper. B Idllngton, 

Back, Henry, and Grafhah. William, tailors, Arjrylo-st, 

Reift-nt-st. Pet. Nov. 1 1 . Nov. 28, at three, at 10, Argylfc-st, 

BefTunUst. Sol. Staidniun. Coleman-»t 
BAltiu. Henry, wo<^>ll.'n cloth mtrchant, Leeds. Pet. Nov. 13. 

Dec, 1, at three, at ofBcft of Sol, Carr 
BamNETI-, JAME!i. pl;usterGr. Altrineham. Pet. Nov. 12. Nov, 

ao, at three, at offices of 8ols. Edwards and BiutlUT, Maa- 

Bamcock. Davtp, foreman at b chemical works. Lower Cheater- 

at, Ea*<t Greenwich, Pet, Nov. 11. Nov. 27, at twelve, at office 

of Sol, Gcftueaeut. Now Broad-flt 
BemsTEAD, Mark, trenernl de:il«ir, Tliames-ftt. Greenwich. Pet. 

Nov, U, Nov. 27, at ttiree, at offloo of Sol. Sotird and Sou, 

BE^ELWO()D. JOHN, groc^r, Stren?ttll. Pet. Nov. 12. Nov. 30, at 

twelve, at office of Sol. Mrrtsm. Mnnn, York 
Bines, Ernest He«<nard, dmper, Sunderland. Pet. Nov. I2. 

Nov. 90, at twelve, at offlce of Sol, Hall. Sunderland 
BODHON. John (tradln^r under style of Midland Glass Company). 

irlBSi>( mnnufiicturer. Birinkndhitm. Pet. Nov, 12. Nov, '.TT, at 

twelvp, at office of Sols, Soathall, Thomas, and SouUiull, Blr- 

BOBNBR. RICHARD, out of huslne-iy, York. Pet. Nov. 13, Nov. 

28, at twelve, at office of Sol- JanioB, York 
BOWAHD William, tailor. Clielmondicttjn. Pet. Nov. 12. Dec. 

7, at thri'C. ut offlce of Sol, Hill. Ipswich 
BuOHEf, John, wool merchant, Bradford, Pet. Nov. 12. Not. 

30, at thrt^o, at offices fjf Sol, Revriolds, Bradford 
Bl'iJHES, HVT.H. builder. Anllcld. near Liverpool, Pet. Nov, 14. 

Dec. I. at three, at ofdcea of Messrs. Glbs^m and Bolland, 10, 

South John-st, Liverpool. Sola. W*hitley and Muddock, Liver' 

jACKf*oN, Daniel, cloth manufacturer. Burmrintofts, in par. of 

Le^i'in, Pet. Nov, 2. Nov, '£j, at three, ut ufficu of Sol. Uetisrs. 

Jackson, Thomas, airent, Bradford. Pet, Nov. 13, Nov. 28, nt 

three, at tho (freit Nurtheni Railway Station hotel, Leeds. 

Sol. Rhodes, Hallfnx 
Jeffh, Caroline, procer, ■Willenhall, Pet, Nov. 13. Nov. 38, at 

eleven, at oflice of So.. B.-»rrow, Wolverhampton 
Jones. Henry William, dallymaij, Wandsworth rd. Pet. Nov. 

12, Dfo, 7. ut two, at the offices of Howfie, iiccuuntant, Httiple* 
inn, Uolborn, Sol. Hnrris, Staple-inn. Holboru 

Joyce Jt>HN, jeweller. Bartholomew- rd. Kentish Town. Pot. Nov 

13. Nov, 30. at three, ut office of Sol. Christmas, St. John's 
ohambem, Walbrook 

Xelly, Patrhk Joseph, bootmaker. Salford. Pet. Nov, 12. 

Nov. 20. at three, at offices of Sold. Fox, Mauchoster 
Kkbm.\n. Charles, erurhu-er. Penarth, Pet. Nov. 10. Nov. 27, 

Ht twtlve, ut office of Sol. Griffilh and Corbett, Cardiff 
KlKU, Jahrm; Foulkes, Edwaud Henuv, provision merchants, 

Liverpool, Pet, Nov. I.'t, Dec. V, nt three, at office of HeAtu-a, 

Roose and Price, aecountuntn. 20, North Jobn-st, Liverpool, 

Bols. Yatc"i, Son, and Htananouyht. Llveipool 
SlVlMNc;, HOBERT. 8»ilni.ikcr. Npv.c;Lstlc-npon-Tyne. Pet, Nov. 

12. Nov. 30, at eleven, at the Northumoerluna Chambers, 18, 

Northumbcr]and-ct, NewcaRtltj-upou.Tyno 
XaCY, Rt>nEUT, (TTucer, Mlddlenborough, Pet. Nov, 12. Nov, 28. 

at eleven, ut Mrs. BarkcrV Trmporance h'>tcl. Bridjre-st west, 

Mi'ldlcjiborouKh, Sol, Balnbrldjie, Middl&sborouffh 
I«ANU, John, tilk atrenU Lltchurch. Pet. Nov. 9. Nov. 30. at 

eleven, at offlce of Sol. Leech. Derby 
liAWhOS. William, dejiler, Luton. Pet. Nov. 14. Dec. 3, at two, 

at office of Sol. Neve, Luton 
XOCKER, Joseph. bootm»ker, Blackbnm. Pet, Nov. 11. Nov. 

37, at o quarter imst ten, at oinoc& of Sot, MaiTlott, Blackburn 
liONDON, JOHN, tailor. Gatoahcad. Pet. Nov. II, Nov. 37, at two- 

at f-'tfict- of Sots. Mcssir-*. Ji-k-I, Newoafttle-iipon-Tyne 
J|ACD(»NAM>, JAME.-^, K^tjcer. South Stockton. Pet. Nov. 12. 

Nov, 27, at eleven, at office of Sola. Fuwcett, Gorbutt, and Faw- 

ct-tt, Stnrkton-on-Teej< 
Maillard, Pierre David, dairymon, Coleheme-ter, Richmond- 

rd. West Brtjinpton. Pet. Nov, (J. Nov. 27, at eleven, atoffice of 

Sol- Roberts. Colfinan-st. City 
JlcEwKN. ALEXANDER, financial ajrent, Lombard House. Goorfre- 

yd. Lon»bard-»t. Pet. Nov, 13, Dec. Ill, at three, at offlce of Sols. 

Lewj!*, Munns, and Loneden. Old Jewry 
Hyatt. Jo.spph, innkoiT<:r, Aberiravenny, Pet. Nov, 13. Nov. 

.TO, at two. at office of So], Jonus, Abergavenny 
Okell. Alfred, wholewilo beddintr «nd tick' merchant, Blr- 

minKham, Pet Nov, 13. Dec, 3, ot three, at offlceof Sol. Row- 
lands, Blrminchnm 
Oliphant, Hlnhv William, editor, Fleot-st, and St. John's- 

ter. IVt. Nov. u. Dec. \ at three, at office of Sols. Messrs, Gold, 

BerF»'ant's Inn, rhancer>--lo 
Obd, William Smith, carver, Norton. Pet. Nov, 11. Nor. 37, 

at three, at office of Sola, Dodds and Co., Stockton-on-Tees 
Parton. John, grocer, Chatham. Pet. Nov, 13, Nov. 30, at 

tw*'lve. at offices of Sol. Hayward, Buchoster 
Fell, Jonathan, hotel keeper. Aberystwith, Pet. Nov. 12. 

Nnv, 27, at tvtolvo, at offlceof Sols. MesarB. Hushes, Aberyst^ 

wilh ' 

PHiLLiPa. Thomas Henry, eraa enidneer, PeatherKtoncbldjir?, 

Hoibom. Pet. Nov. 10. Deo. 9, at three, at office of Sol. Cooper, 


PJNK. William, wine mercluint, Adjinia-ct, Old Broad-?*!, and 

Queen's-rd, Dolaton. Pet, Nov, 13, Dec. (J, at two. at MtUion's 

Hall Tavern, Mason's-uveuuo, Colemon-st. Sol, Uoson, North- 

bldifs, Finsbury 

PRIE.ST, CHARLEt^ blackamith. Sheffield. Pet. Nov, 11. Nov. 30. 

at tlireo, at office of Sola. Messrs. Chambers, SheffloM 
RicUARDSfiN, GEORGE, boot factor, Leicester. Pet. Nov. 14. 
Dec. .'t, at twelve, at offloe of Sol, Harvey. Leicester 

R0BIN80N. Charles, cabman. Little Britain, Stor«-4t, Bedford- 
sq. Pe:, Nov. 12. Dec. 7. at three, at offices of Holloway, ac- 
count uit. 173. Ball's Poiid-rd, Islington. Sol- Fenton, Albion- 
ter, Klntn^land 

R'H.LIN. John white, watch dealer, Durham, Pet. Nov. 13, 
Doc. 9, at three, at the Neville hotel. North-road, Durham. Sol. 
Brlnrnall. DurhJini 

Shepherd, Edwin, Venetian blind manufacturer, Bimilnttham. 
Pet, Nov. 12. Doc, 2. at three, at office of Sol. Rowlands, Bir- 

Shei'PARD, Thomas, (rroeor. Lower Gcortrc-st, Sloane-sq, Chelsea. 
Pftt. Nov. 12. Dec. 1, b£ three, at office of Sol. Watson, Guild- 
hH 11 -yard 

Smith. George Cornblitt-*. Dukest. Lincoln's Inn-field?). Pet. 
Nov. 14, Nov, 30, ut three, at office of Sol. Ropers, Kssex-st, 

Smith, henry, out of basinca^, Wjllaston, Pet. Nov. 12. Nov. 
30. at ten, nt office of Sol. PreBcott, Stourbrldjfe 

Si'ARKEs, William, yeoman, Turch Bffanih Farm, in par. of 
Colytt-'n. Pet, Nov. 12. Nov. 30, ut three, at tho Gooitre hotel, 
Chard. Sol. PauU. Ilmlnster 

Speight, John, tin plater, Bradford. Pet. Nov. 13. Nov. 28, at 
ten, at offices of Sols. Torry and R-iblnson, Bradford 

Spencer, I^AAc, ntufT merchant, Bradford, Pet. Nov. 12. Nov. 
30, at eleven, at offices of .Snl. Rhodes, Bnidford 

SlLBV, James Ferry, ufrricultural enjfineer. LIvcrpKiol. Pet.- 
Nov, 12. Dec, 1, at three, at officer of Messrs, Glb^^n and Bol 
land, 10, South John-st> Liverpool. Sols. Barrel! and Rodway, 

Sprago. WALTER WMLLIAM, (Tordener, Teddinjrton. in par, of 
Overbury, Pet. Nov, 12. Nov. 2.>, ut tliriiu ut office of Sol. 
BlllinRs, Cheltenlmm 

Statam, Richard, boot maker. Helper. Pet, Nov. 11. Nov. 30, 
at three, at office of Sol, BriKtf«. Derby 

Stephknhon, HoberT, boot mnker, Scotland Gate. Pet. Nov. 12. 
Nov, 27, at eleven, at tho Countv Court, Woattfaterd, Newcastle- 
upon-Tyne. Sol. Nicholson, Morpeth 

Stringer. David, provision dealer, Annotte-rd. Holloway. Pet. 
Nov, 13. Nov. 30. ut eleven, at officeK of HfAlnwuj-, accountant, 
173. Bull's Poud-rd, Islington, Sol, Fenton, Albkm-tcr, Klnjrs- 

Taylor, William, grocer, Hampton-pl, Shoen-Ia. Hortlake. 
Pet. Nov. U. Dec, 1, at two, at offict; of Sol, Cattlln, Guild- 
hall yd 

Taylou, William, oilman, City-rd. Pet. Oct, 27, Nov. 25, at 
three, at offlce of Sol. Holm«». Kenchurch-«t 

Timanncw.Charleh Edward Frederick, goldsmith, St. John, 
st-rd, Clcrkcnwell. Pet. Nov. 13, Dec. 4 , at three, ut offlce of 
Sols, Ev:uifiand Eagles. John-st, Bedford-row 

TOWTEVIN, William, builder, Laurel-trruve, Penpe, Pet. Nov. 11, 
Nov. 3U, «t twelve, at office of Sol. Roders, Mork-lu 

TltESlDDER. THOMAS Richard. tai'Or, Penzance, Pet. Nov. U, 
Nov. 27, at three, at office of Sols. Rodd and Comlsh, Pen- 

Wakefield, Ellen BLANCHEORANViLLE.aplnster.Brompton- 

sq. Pet. Nov, 1,1, Dec. 2 at one, at offlce of Henrv Arthur 

DulxilH, publio accountant, 2, Gresham-bldgs, Bosinehnll-st. Sol, 

Lay. Chancery-la 
Walker, Joh.v, draper, Rhefflel'l. Pet, Nov. 10, Dec. 1. at 

twelve, at the Cutler's Hall, Cliurch-st, Sheffield. Sol. Tatter- 
Waters, Alfred Henry, (trocer, Bln(rti«]d-»t, C aledonlan-rd. 

Pet, Nov, 13. Dec, II, at thrfe. at offices of HoHowmv. a^;- 

countant, 173, BaH'^j Poud-n;'', lalluj^ton. Sol. Fenton, Albion- 

ter. Kine^l;ind 
Watts, Henry Frederick, baker, Lower Queen, ."it, Rother- 

hithe. Pet. Nov. lii. Nov. 2rt. at thrwe, at ofDoe of Sol, Chlpper- 

tleld and Sturt, Trlnity-st, Southwark 
Watson, JamE'-, i-itlor, Nottlnphoro. Pet. Nov. 11, Dec. 3, at 

eleven, ut offie*. ■ i •>' Brittle, Nottln^rham 
Weale, Wir LIAM Eu.vvtD, coal merchant. Blrmlnpham. Pet, 

Nov. 10. Nov. 3i, at twelve, ut offlceof Sol, Fiillow-t, hirnilrKhum 
WBRfiTEH, John William, out of bu'lnoss. Foxwell's Whrjf, 

Bath-rd, Pet Nov, 9. Nov- W, at throe, at offlce of Sols. Hobba 

and Slnnott, Bristol 
Wenman, Thoma.**. cheoBonionffer, Go*well-ni. Saint Luke's. 

Pet. Nov. 4. Nov. 'JSti, at tliree, at office of Sol. Brown, Gos- 

WHEATLEY, EDWARD GREY, boot maker, Romford, Pet. Nov, 

l:!. Dec, 2, at three, at offices of Sols, Wood and Hare, Baalng- 

WHITEHOiTjiE, Henry Wrioht. p-ocor, Phocnlx-at. St. Pancras. 

Pet Nov. HI. Nov. 30, ut one, ut office of Sol. Johnson, Ul^h-sl, 




Th« Official As^giMcs^ S:c.. are given, to whom apply for ifie 

Cnrfiiu, T, 0, leather scUur, final, Ud- At the County Court- 
office. Cheltenham,— A7/»fci>. J. k1;iss dealer, first, lid. At Trust. 
S, HuA-es, 24, CheapNide, Hanky,— ^fcfn.ftfi/j, J, L. and T. lace 
ninnuidcturers, first and Until. 1«, 4}d. ; first and final hop, of J. L, 
Swindells, 2s. Old.; first uud flual sep, of T. Swindells. 20b. At 
Trust. H. E, Hubbart, ti, Thurlund-«t, Nottingham,— HV/rA. other- 
wise Mercer, H, G. widow, second, &s. At Trutit, F. O'Urlcn, 1, 
DiUiOM-inn, Strund, 

HuipTii and 0>. navy acenta. ninth and final, 7id., and to new 
proofs Gs. uid. Pa*fet, Ha.slnu'— opurrow, E, metal broker, 
second, 'is, ^(L Stone, LivcrpiMil. 

VloutoH, H. E, atockbrokor, first. Is. 3d. At Trust. E. Moore. 3, 
Crosby-sq.— /«■«!,, A. H, blickemith, lirst n/"." ttnjJ, 3d. At Sol, 
Hillman, Lcwea.— '.at/, W. dnqjor, fli-st, 4«. At Trust, R. Hannaii, 
6.'>, Clayton-«t, Newcastle, — Harcy, J, and T. shipbuilders, first 
and fin-ils-ep, of;»d,nf T. Hurvey. At Head-st. Colcliester.— //-'ntr«. 
W. U. shoe mcrchiint. flrwt. 2s. At Trust. J, Scott. 30, Mlnori^s, 
—johiiunn, G. farmer, socond and final, H<H. At Tnuit. S. Domlny. 
21, Watcrloo-st, Birmingham,— y"'""*"'!. R. iind W, H, watch 
inaVersi. first :ind final, 2s. ltd. At Trust, F, Bedford. (C. Queen-t*t. 
ftlieffleid, — .^lirt-fl, M, D. ciiuniiiKloii merchant, third and final. 
Old, At Trust, H, Bolland. U. 8<»nth J(ihn-*<t. Llverpuol,— HVirr.--., 
G, victualler, first. .3s. 6d, At Sol, Davy,,— H'li'-^r., H. 
stationer, second, Id. At Trust. S. Smitli. tr>. Basin Khali .st, — 
WilkiuMjtt, 3. ham merchant, first and final, lOd. At Sols. Gray, 
Frankland, and Simpson, Whitby, 

©rbtrs cf ^IDisc^argt. 

GntctUt "Nov, 10. 

HCLLY, MOKEK. butcher, Kendal 

McMiTRDo, Alexander GUiEanov, travellins draper, New- 

Reader, William, fire proof safe mnnofacturor, Cultum-st 

GazetU, Nov. 1-1. 
MYEIW, Abraham, hat manufacturer, Hlgh-st, Whitechapel 


Wit-KINsoTf,— On the 13th Inst,, at OT. Elshnm-roftd, Kenslnfrt,on, 

tlie wUo of Jociiali Wilkinson, jun., barrlsler-al-luw, of a dauffh- 

WILLIAMS,— On the 27th ult., nt Noltlnpham. the wife of Charles 

William WllllaniB, solicitor, W^alsall, Staffordshire, of a dwigb- 


Bartlrtt.— On thfi ISth inst,, Rt the Tavlstook Hotel, Covent- 

irarden. uffed 77 yeui-w, Rich:ird Bartlett. Esq,,barriater-at-law. 
Holm AN. — on the llth iuht., Ht Glastonbury, ngfA 68 year*. 

Stephen Holman r - * *" '" * --■ - 

TANNER,— On tho 

Stephen Holman E^q., for M years Town Clerk of th« BorouKh. 
ANNER,— On the l.'ith Inat., a^ed 3J yean, William Benford 
Tanner, solicitor, thli'd sod of John Tanaer, ■oUclior, Speeu- 

liaxoland, Berks. 

t FUNERAL REFORM. — The exorbitant 
items of the andertaker's bill havp lonp operated u 
in oppres-'-ive tax upon all clas-^os of the community With 
J^'^ew of applyinK a remedy to this serious eril the 
their extensive cemetery at Woking, held themselves in^ 
pared to tindertakn the wholfi dntie^ relatinjr to in'^crmenti 
at fixed and moderate Kcilesof chargis from which !<arvivorB 
luay choose ace rdinsr to their means and the reqairetnentB 
of the case. The Company also undertake.^ the conductof 
FuneralB to other cemeteries, and to all partB of tiie United 
Kinfrdom. A pamphlet containing full particulars may bft 
obtained, or will bo forwarde i, upon application to tba 
chief Offlce, 2, Lanca«tor-place. Strand. w.C. 

TAMAE INDIEK, the only Medidiw 
admitted to Intema'ional Exhibtion \'^T\ aLaxativL 
Refreshing, and Mo'iicated Fruit Lozenge, the Immediate 
Relief and SpeciBc Cure of Con-tip 'tion. Heudn-he, BOcl 
Haemorrhoids, &c. "Tamar." unlike pilb- and the nrai 
purgative-, is agreeable to take, and naver proriucf* irrita- 
tion. 2h. f'd perbi^x; post free Sd extra.— E. Ghillon, 
ti. Tendon Wall, E.G.; also of Barclay and Sons, and 
of all chemists. 

Eatablished in 1835. 
Preaident- The Earl Spencer K G. 
Chairman of Committee of Management— Hia Graise The 
Duke of Grafton. 
Vice-Chairman— The Rev. I ord A. Compton. 
The main rbjpct of this Asvlnm is to provide accomoda- 
tion and comforta suitable to the former sociril ana preseat 
mental condition of parsing b^Ionf^iIler t > the above men* 
tioned closjeb who are not able to afford high rates of pay- 

The terms of admission vary from 15.^. per week npmrdi 
accurdiii); to the accomodatiin required. 

For furthei particulars apply to the Medical Sopexin* 
ten dent. 









(Four TiooTs East of Chancery -lang.) 

Dressing has : perfect as a TraveUinK Bag- 
POUTM.\NTEAUS:anew article, reKistered. 

FISHEK'S DRESSING BAGS. Catalogues pott free. 
— IhS, .Strand. 


O EN, and from its clost pro.\imity to 'he law Coort^ 
beiiiK n' arly opposite Lincoln'-ii Inn Gates, will be fomd 
a Kieat detuderatum tu Members of the liegal FrofeaikiB 
and others, 

l-uncheons aorred from I to S o'clock, and DiL'ner*d l€ 
Cortf from :i to 7 p m. Dinners served lor an^ number m 
per arranifemeut and on the shortest notice. | 

Spacious Refreshment Buffet. Grill, Dining, and Billiera 

JAMES RAMSHIRE, Proprietor. 

TO SOLICITORS with a large c mnection or 
to Secretftries ot public companies. To be LKTioiM 
very fine suites of ofticea on first and heoond tloi irs, with rtie* 
proof strong room at New Bndge-Btrcet ■ hainbt."s, S9, Kew 
Bridge-street. Blackfriars.— Apjly on the premises, to tti 
Ktroretary of the London ( iemetary Com pany. 

CHAMBERS to LET.— To Solicitors only.— 
Double or aintrle sets of seven, fonr. or thnerooml* 
with all mi'dem conveniences, in the new buildiuK, No.1* 
Clement's Inn, Strand, overloiiking the inTendwl New Lew 
Oourtd.— Apply to Mr. Thomas Greqobx, Steward, IB* C8^ 
meat's Inn. 

OFFICES to be LET.— No. 21, WhitehaU- 
place, a Suite of OFFICf 8, first floor, immediet* 
poaaeKsioTi.— Apply at the premises. Additional RooBB 
can be had. 



a. d. 

EngroBginp Answerm. AfUdavits, and Fair Copies, per 

folio _ „ ™ • 14 

Engrossins Deeds, per folio _ • 4 

Porchuient, per Skin _ t ft« 

Country Parcels returned the flame day if required. 


Draft Paper from ^*. a ream. 

Bnlod and Plain Fooli>cap from 9s. cd. a ream. 

Brief, li»^. 6d, a 'earn. 

Note I'aper from Is. fid. a ream. 

EriVfilopes, Ss, looo. 

Die Sinking and Stamping. 





(Tbiee doors west of C1iaiic«r;-liuie.) 

Digitized by 


Nov. 28, 1874.J 



8^0 ^£ab£rs anb Corrtspcnbtnts. 

AaoDTmons eonmmnieatioiui are ioTariably rejected. 

An ootDiBaxiiciktions mnst be antbenticated by the name and address of the writer 

not necesaarily (or publication, but aa a ifuarantee of good fuitb. 
AU oommanications intended for the Editob of the Solicitors' Dbpaatvevt 

ahoold be so addressed. 



Four lines or thtrty tcordf 3a. 6d. | Every additional ten toordj Os. 6d 

Advertisements Rpeoially ordered for the first page are charged one-fourth more 
than the above scale. 

Advertisements must reach the Office not later than five o'clock on Thunday 
afternoon. • 


The Tolomefl of the Law Tikes, and of the Law Tiues Reports, are stronirlr and 
uniformly bound at the Office, as completed, for 53. 6d. for the Journal, and 4e. 6d. 
for the Beporte. 

Pottfolioe for preserving the current numbers of the Law Tikes, price 5s. 6d; 
Law Txiixb Befobts, price Ss. 6d. 



r FOTHCaoiLL— 

r«Ddor and porchaaer— Sala of ronl 
pnpctty— Detect of title— Deposit 
anaup<inae«— DuuAXoo 3S7 


niirf BALL; Bf AllAMs— 

Boakntptcy — Uur»);UUtn>d comp«ny— 

WlnduiK-ap 3DC 

Elp«rle»tB. Wm. FOSTER: fi'- POOLET— 
fi.inkmptc>* — Adjudlc^iilon pending 
proceeding* for liquidation „.... 3^7 

&15T»EB ff. HKATHF1ELI>— 

ExecDtor— Trustee— Retainer ^.... 400 

DMrlot Blffhwa}- board—Licence to 
open a road — Coutildurutlun fur bar- 

^b*X ft as Vict. o. (11 -.. 403 


Highway— Surveyor's aocoants— Uae 
of Kam and materUI* — Allowanc«M of 
lUagal eluuses— Justioea' discretion .. 40i 

iBtcrrogatorloa— C. L. P.Act 18M, «. 51— 
AcUonbr executors 407 
Mitrlne Inauiance— Policy on cjutro— 
I Extent of implied warranty of aeo- 

worthlnesa— Deck cargo 408 


Coonty Court — A ppeul — Security for 
ctMta — Omission to give security 
1^^ wltldD fourteen diiy« 413 


^^■P'^'tt BOLLAND ; Re MuLDEN— 
^^KT^ B.nkjuptc>'—8uhpa-na— Service of— By 

riparu LIXD8AY; Ht LINDSAY— 

Practice— Bunkniptcy Petition— For- 

ImalHfnd'ivl- \.rlfvirif-Act of bunk- 
L niT''' "o' *15 
Kparr' i' I 1'!*— 
I Hi«r : . w dispute 
I -DiL..-, ^ ^ _,_^>-od» 410 

Topieiof the Week ...... ^ 

The Lord ChancoUor and Dr. Keneoly 57 

Hie Report of the Lcfpil Departments 
Commualon - 57 

The Vendor and Purchiwer Act 1874 TA 

The Supreme Court of Judicature Act 5U 

Supreme Court of Judicature— Second 
Report of the Commlaiiloncni CO 

Solicitors* JotTRNAL (Edited by a Solid- 


TopicH of the Week »........„..»...«...._. 61 

Notes of Now Decisions „ C3 

Court of Quccn'fl Bench ^ 63 

Court of Common Pleas .,„ „ 03 

Court of Excbeouer „ 64 

Harylebono Police Court 64 

Unclaimed Stock and Dividends In the 

Bank of Eixrland 64 

Appolntmeutfi under the Joint Stock 

Winding-up Acts C4 

Creditors under Estntns In Chancery <M 

Creditors under 22& 23 Vict. 0.35 &4 

Reports of Sales „. b4 

Magistrates' Law— 
Stowmorket Police Court C5 

Maritime law— 
Nutex of New Decisions GS 

Beai. Property axd CONVsyANciNO— 
Notes of New Decisions .• „.. 65 

County codrts— 

mcoinshurj' County Court — _ M 

Lunipclor County Court Oi 

Ulver«ton und Darrow.ln-FUmeas County 
Court „ 60 

Legal News 67 

Law SruDESTg' Journal— 
Questions for the Intonnediate Examina- 
tion 67 


Notes and Qvsries on Poikta or Prac- 
tice 08 

Law Socikties- 
Lcpul Pmctttioners* Soolety 68 

r«irt>-moutli Law Studcnt*"^ Society 70 

Cri'llUiii Law DebatinK Society 70 

Norwich Liiw Students' Society _ 70 

Hudflf-n: field Lhw Students* Debating 

boflL'ty 70 

Law .Student"' Debating Society 70 

BlrniiriKlwm Ljiw StudunU' Society 70 

Articled Clerks' Society „ _.. 70 

Legal Extracts— 
Bench and Bht 70 

LeOAL OBITUARY _ «.- -. 71 

The COURTS AND Court Papers— 

winter CircuiW of the Judges 71 


The GAZETTES „ ™ 71 

BtRTHs, Marriages, and Deaths 72 


t\t STato u^ i\t ITafops. 

The Irish courts are indulging in a conflicl. of judicial opinion 
which is simply absurd, and illustrates most forcibly the essential 
importance of a single High Court sitting in divisions instead of 
several and distinct courts sitting separately, and considering 
themselves at liberty to differ from one another to any extent. 
On the 9th inst. the Irish Court of Queen's Bench decided that : 
" In consequence of the Judgments Extension Act 1868, a plaintiff 
resident in England will not bo required, by this court, to give 
security for costs, unless special circumstances be shown to induce 
the court, in its discretion, to order otherwise." On the 6th the 
Court of Exchequer had decided that : " A defendant, notwith- 
standing the passing of the Judgments Extension Act 1868, is 
entitled to obtain an order to stay proceedings in an action 
hronght by a plaintiff living in England, until security for 
costs has been given, where a satisfactory affidavit is made 
that the defendant has a defence upon the merits." And 
the Court of Exchequer, on the 7th, also determined " that 
a defendant, notwithstanding the passing of the Judgments 
■"itension Act 1868, is entitled to obtain an order to stay pro- 
ings in an action brought by a plaintiff resident in Wales, 
nntil security for costs has been given where a satisfactory 
affidavit is made, disclosing that the defendant has a defence upon 
VOL. ZLTm.— Xo. 1653. 

^a d( 

^K Tinti] 
W affid 

the merits." Two of these decisions fire in conflict with the third, 
and also with a decision of the English Court of Queen's Bench. 
The Irish Judges would do well to follow the example recently 
set them by the English Bench, and consult when they find the 
courts in conflict, so as to bring about uniformity of practice. 

Av important announcement was made on Tuesday last, in the 
Probate and Divorce Court, by the Judge Ordinaiit, to which 
practitioners in thiit court will do well to pay good heed. It is 
known to all of them that the learned judge does not sit in court 
on Monday, but spends that day in studying the papers for the 
numerous motions which are made in court on the day following. 
The result of his Lordship's Monday labours has hitherto been 
the discovery of a number of sins of omission and commission in 
the preparation of the various materials on which the Tuesday 
motions are based. The practice of the court has hitherto been to 
grant the prayer of e.ich motion subject to the omissions or other 
mistakes pointed out being subsequently rectified. The effect of 
this leniency, said his Lordship, has been that carelessness in the 

E reparation of these materials has increased, and great trouble 
as, in consequence, been given at the registry. For the future, 
his Lordship expressed his determination to exact a strict com- 
pliance with the provisions of the Act of Parliament, and the 
rules regulating the procedure of the court, and to postpone in 
every case the making of the order prayed for till the require- 
ments of the statute and rules had been strictly observed. 

Cases are ocoasion.illy brought before the courts which make 
one wonder, from their extreme simplicity as to the question of 
moral right and wrong, liow they could have been made the sub- 
ject of litigation. The cn.'se of llhysv. Dare Valle;/ Railway Com- 
pamj is an instance in point. It is the more astonishing that it 
should have been thought necessary to obtain a judicial decision 
on a question which was sufficiently obvious, because the amount 
involved is not very great. The company gave notice to Mes.srs. 
Riivs and EionAuu for the purchase of certain lands in August, 
1861. There was great difficulty in ascertaining the amount of 
compensation payable, and long litigJition ensued, owing to the um- 
pire's coming to no decision. The owners at length obtained the 
verdict of a jury, assessing the compensation at £'2000. The only 
question was as to the date from which interest was payable. "The 
plaintiffs claimed from 1868, when the company took possession. 
The defendants contended that no interest could be claimed from 
an earlier period than the verdict of the jury. Vice-Chancellor 
Baco.v most properly decided in favour of the plaintiffs, and 
stigmatised the contention of the defendants as " not consistent 
with common sense, honesty, or jn.stice." The defendants tried 
every means in their power to postpone a settlement ; and then 
they coolly propose to pay no rent or compensation for a consider- 
able periotl during which they enjoyed possession, as if the purchase 
money were not due from the date of their entry on the land. 
The period of occupation between 186S and tho award of the jury 
is not stated. Supposing that period to have been four or five 
years the vendors, on the company's assumption, would lose four 
or five years' rent, and the real purchase money to them would 
have been the present worth of £2000, payable four or five years 

The decision of A'ice-Chancellor Maliks in the case of Coles v. 
V'dhinglon, made on the Pth inst., seems to require an explanation, 
such as can scarcely be gathered from the short report in the 
Weekly Kotes. The facts are briefly as follows : In 18-18, Sabau 
Coles purchased a leasehold interest in a house in Upper Baker- 
street. She lived there a short time, but afterwards allowed her 
half-sister, Anx Hkatu, to occupy the house rent free. Ann 
He.vth died in 1861. At that time the plaintiff, a cousin of 
Sauaii Coles, was residing as servant with Aks Heath, but on 
the latter's death, she proposed to begin business as milliner in 
partnership with a friend. According to her own statement she 
abandoned this intention at Sakah Coles* request, and instead, 
agreed to occupy the house on payment of rates and taxes and 
ground rent only, and indeed occnpied the house on these terms 
till Sarah Coles' death in 1871. The plaintiff contended that 
Saeau Coles verbally agreed to give her the house for her life on 
those terms, in consideration of her giving up the intended 
business. Sarah Coles died in March 1871, and by her will gave 
all her property to the defendant, who allowed the plaintiff' to 
remain without paying any rent till 31st Oct. 1873, when he com- 
menced an action of ejectment, which notion the present bill was 
filed to restrain. The defendant by his answer stated that the 
real agreement was for the plaintiff to pay £2 a week for the house. 
Tho ViCE-CnAN( ellor held that he must, from the circumstances, 
accept the plaintiff's view of theagreement, and that the abandoning 
of the business and entering into possession was a part perform- 
ance which excluded the Statute of Frauds. It does not appear 
how the plaintiff's desisting from carrying on a particular busi- 
ness was a valuable consideration, in return for which she was to 
occupy a house rent free. Sarah Coles does not seem to have 
derived any benefit from the plaintiff's not entering into business. 




[Nov. 28, 1874. 

The whole transaction appears to have been voluntary, and any 
reference to part performance is consequently irrelevant. The 
permission to the plaintiff to occupy the premises rent free seems 
to have been a free gift, made on the grounds of friendship and rela- 
tionship, to obviate the necessity of the plaintiff's beginning busi- 
ness. Such a permission is surely in its nature revocable ; and in 
case of its revocation there would have been no reason why the plain- 
tiff should not have begun business. Can it be contended that Miss 
Coles had no right before her death to eject the plaintiff ? If she 
had such a right, it must have become vested in the defendant, to 
whom she left all her property. It is possible that the fuller report 
in the Law Reports may disclose important circumstances omitted 
in the Weekly Notes. 

Thkre are settled principles of bankruptcy law which it is 
decidedly dangerous to violate, or even to engraft exceptions upon 
in particular cases, though the facts of those particular cases 
appear to justify it. One of the most venerable of these prin- 
ciples is that a partner cannot prove against the estate of his 
co-partner until all the joint debts are paid. The reason of this 
rule is well put in Ex parte CoUinge, re Holdswarth (9 L. T. Rep. 
N. S. 309). The second paragraph of the head-note there is : " The 
rule ... is not framed for the benefit of the joint creditors 
solely, the ground Of it being that a man is not to be 
allowed to do that whereby he may come into competition 
with his own joint creditors." The facts of that case were that two 
partners had dissolved partnership. The terms wei-e that A. should 
hand over to B. his share of the joint assets, B. entering into a 
bond to pay A. a sum of money. B. became bankrupt, but A. was 
not allowed to prove for his debt against B.'s estate, although A., 
since B.'s bankruptcy, had handed over all his estate to trustees 
for the benefit of creditors, and it appeared that the proof 
would, by the events which had happened, enure to the 
benefit of the joint estate. This case was held to govern 
one which was decided in contravention of the rule by 
the Chief Judge in Bankruptcy, and whom, therefore, the 
Lord Justices overruled : {Ex parte Oordon, re Dixon.) There 
the claim to prove was by the executors of a deceased partner, 
whose share of the business had been agreed before his 
decease to be paid by instalments. It was, however, loft in the 
business, but no bond was given for the amount, nor had any 
instalments been paid. Proof against the estate of a partner, 
under a separate liquidation petition, was expunged by the Judge 
of the Carlisle County Court, but restored by the Chief Judge. 
Lord Justice Jamks said it would really bo unsettling the law to 
affirm the judgment of the Chief Judge. 

The very highest authorities have long difiered as to whether the 
words " cause of action " in the 18th section of the Common Law 
Procedure Act 1852 meant whole cause of action or a substantial 
part of the cause of action, such as " the act on the part of the 
defendant which gives the plain tiflf his cause of complaint," the 
Court of Queen's Bench, as in Allhusen v. Mal/jarejo (18 L. T. 
Eep. N. S. 323; L. Rep. 3 Q. B. 340) and Cherry^. Thompson 
(L. Rep. 7 Q. B. 573; 26 L. T. Rep. K S. 701) holding the 
former, the Court of Common Pleas, in Jachson v. Spill all 
(L. Rep. 5 C. P. 542; 22 L. T. Rep. N. S. 792), holding 
the latter, and the Court of Exchequer, in Burham v. Spence 
(L. Rep. 6 Ex. 46; 23 L. T. Rep. N. S. 600) being equally 
divided on the point. " The weight of authority," said Black- 
burn, J. in delivering the carefully considered judgment of the 
Court of Queen's Bench in Cherry v. Thompson, " may be con- 
sidered nearly equal." The section, it will be remembered, 
authorises the court or a Judge upon being satisfied by affidavit 
that there is " a cause of action which arose within the jurisdic- 
tion, or in respect of the breach of a contract made within the 
jurisdiction," to allow the plaintiff in an action against a British 
subject residing without the jurisdiction " to proceed in such 
a manner as to the court or Judge shall seem fit." In the 
Common Pleas case of Vaughan v. Weldon, in which, the long 
vacation intervening, judgment had been deferred for about 
nine months, it has been recently announced that the Judges 
of all the courts have determined to follow the view of the 
Court of Common Pleaa as expressed in the case of Jachson v. 
Spittall {ubi sup.), it being understood that the Court of Queen's 
Bench yield for the sake of order, and not from conviction. The 
whole series of cases in the three courts may be found carefully 
reviewed in Day's Common Law Procedure Act, 4th edit., p. 47, the 
learned editor strongly supporting the view of the Court of 
Common Pleas. It appears that even in the case of All- 
JiMsen V. Malgarejo itself, Willes, J., after the Court of Queen's 
Bench had set aside the writ of that court, issued between the 
parties for the same cause of action made an order empowering 
the plaintiff to proceed in the Common Pleas. " I make this 
order," observed the learned Judge, " according to the practice fol- 
lowed since the Act passed, and according to the construction of the 
Act, which I have reason to believe was intended." (See Law 
Times, vol. Ixvii., p. 142.) Itis, we think, very remarkable that the 
conflicting courts did not much sooner arrive at a settlement, 
considering that there is no mode of raising the question in a 

court of error, and that each court had so plainly announced the 
intention to adhere to its own opinion. It is twenty-two years since 
the Common Law Procedure Act passed ; the first judicial doubts 
appear to have arisen about ten years ago, and two courts have 
been in diametrical collision upon the point for more than three 
years. It may be remarked that the new Rules of Court 
effectually provide for the carrying out of the law as enunciated 
in Jackson v. Spiitall. See Order X., Rule 1, where ic is laid 
down that " service out of the jurisdiction may be allowed .... 
wherever the contract which is sought to be enforced or rescinded 
.... was made or entered into within the jurisdiction, and 
whenever there has been a breach within the jurisdiction of any 
contract wherever made. ..." 

It really is not at all surprising that non-professional people 
should from time to time feel very much aghast at the apparent 
(and [sometimes real) disparity in the punishment of criminals. 
Many persons indeed are, with much justice, inclined to the belief 
that the law is more careful of protecting the property than the 
person of individuals. Last week witnessed the trial of an offender 
at Warwick, and also that of two offenders at the Gaildhall in the 
City of London. The prisoner who figured in the Warwick PoUce 
Court, one Thomas Dutton, was charged with having com- 
mitted a sudden and most unprovoked attack on another man, 
named Pakkeb, who was resting himself in the same inn. 
This attack, more worthy of a wild beast, than of a Christian 
man, consisted in laying hold of the foreflTiger of Pakkek, 
getting it into his mouth, and gnawing it like a dog for 
upwards of two minutes, or rather until forced to leave 
hold through the interposition of a third party. The evidence 
went to show that the flesh on the forefinger was torn 
away to the very bone, the nail split asunder, and that the high 
probability remained of the entire loss of the first joint. The 
Warwick Bench of Magistrates, moved by what considerations or 
by what reasoning we are quite unable to say, sentenced the 
prisoner to one month's imprisonment, with bard labour. It 
moreover appeared to have been by no means his first offence, 
since he had on a former occasion bitten a man's finger entirely 
off. But the two prisoners charged, on the same or next day, at 
the Guildhall, had committed very different offences. Lowb and 
SuBRLOCK, maybe not unmoved by more aristocratic assemblies at 
Baden-Baden and at Homburg, were taken in the act of gambling 
with a roulette table in the public streets on the pre- 
ceding Sunday. The case being proved, they were each, in 
strict accordance with law, sentenced to a term of imprisonment 
and hard labour, threefold the duration and length of that which 
in the judgment of the Warwick Bench was sufficient to meet the 
case of TuoMAS Button. The disparity of the punishment in 
these two cases, and the much greater disparity of the crime, can- 
not fail to attract attention, and not unnaturally must suggest a 
belief, among the lower classes, that a mayhem is regarded by the 
law of England with a much more complacent eye than gambling, 
even on a Sunday. We do not hesitate, on the facts before 
us, to express our conviction that the Warwick Bench failed 
in every respect to do its duty. A serious bodily hurt, such as 
the disabling of a forefinger, whereby a man becomes less able to 
protect himself, is certainly a mayhem : (Staunf. P. C. lib. 1, c. 40.) 
A mayhem is a high misdemeanour, and punishable at common 
law by fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court. 
Moreover, the 24 & 26 Vict. c. 100, s. 18, declares that whoso- 
ever shall, unlawfully and maliciously, by any means whatsoever, 
cause any grievous bodily harm to any person, with intent to 
maim, disfigure, or disable any person, shall be guilty of felony. 
The punishment is penal servitude for life, or for not less than 
five years, with the usual alternative of an imprisonment. There 
can be no doubt but that the words, " by any means whatsoever 
cause any grievous bodily harm, &c.," are sufficient to comprise a 
case of mutilation within the statute (compare with it 7 WilL 4 
& 1 Vict. c. 83, ss. 2, 4, and Bex v. Sleveiis, M. & M. C. C. E. 
409). Then the sect. 46 of the same statute enacts that in case 
the justices in petty sessions find an assault to have been 
accompanied by any attempt to commit a felony, or shall con- 
sider the same from any other circumstance to be a fit subject 
for a prosecution by indictment, they shall abstain from any adju- 
dication thereon. Moreover, the summary jurisdiction of magis- 
trates in cases of assault is confined to common assaults and to 
assaults in the nature of common assaults, and does not apply to 
an assault accompanied by any circumstances which make it a 
distinct offence recognised by law, that is something more than 
a more assault, such as an assault with intent to commit a 
felony : {Re Thompson, 6 H. & N. 192.) The case should certainly 
have been remitted for trial, where the prisoner would have met 
with adequate punishment. Indeed, very serious doubts have 
been entertained by the Judges whether a summary conviction 
by justices, under such circumstances as the one before us, is 
even valid; and in the reported case, above quoted, the equal 
division of the Judges on this latter point alone prevented a rule 
to discharge the prisoner from being made absolute. It is nob 
the letter of the law, but its faulty administration by the War- 
wick Bench, which has caused the apparent disparity and gross- 

Digitized by 


TSTov. 28, 1874.] 



^ R- EIbnealt has received a communication from the Lord Ohan- 
3BtxoB concerning the Englithman newspaper, which his Lordship 
Gofers to as a paper " professing to be edited by you under your 
style ae one of Her Majesty's Counsel." Lord Caiens informs 
Dr. Kbnealt that he finds in this publication a series of libellous 
a.ttacks on Her Majesty's Judges and private individuals, and also 
^ saccession of systematic charges of bias, venality, and cormption 
^kgainst the persons connected, whether as judges, jury, counsel, 
or otherwise in a recent prosecntion of Beg. v. Cattro, all tending 
and apparently intended to lower the dignity of the Bench, and 
■fco degrade and discredit the administration of justice." Having 
pointed out the irapossibilitT' of anyone in the position of 
a Queen's Counsel being allowed to indulge in attacks and 
charjgea of this description. Lord Caibns asks Dr. Kenealt 
to inform_ him whether the statement that Dr. Kbnealt 
is the editor of the Englithman be correct. Dr. Kbnealt's 
jreply opens with the statement that he is prostrated 
Ijy illness and nervous exhaustion, and then proceeds to dis- 
pute the right of the Lord Chancelloe to make the inquiry 
at all. "If the paper called the Englishman," he says, "has 
yrronged any man, let the tact be proved; but until it 
is proved your Lordship will do well as a judge not to 
decide hastily, and not to assume anything against it, 
or its supposed editor — myself." The latter observation 
is in reply to the Lord Chancellor's intimation that 
if Dr. Kesealt does not repudiate the editorship "he will 
assume that the published notice " of Dr. Kenealt's name as 
editor is correct. In effect. Dr. Kenealt refuses to give an 
answer to Lord Cairjis's inquiry. " At present," he says, " I 
simply take mj stand upon this broad ground, that your Lordship 
is acting judicially against me, without evidence, and I need go 
no further." " I dispute any authority in your Lordship to ask 
me any question which affects my private rights as a citizen and 
an English gentleman." At this stage we do not think we need 
make any comment upon this correspondence. 



Tms report, which has just been published, and which we are re- 

Sroducing in another column, is in many respects a very important 
ocnment. The prevailing idea has obviously been to curtail and 
reduce our legal establishments, and we will, therefore, first notice 
some of the reductions proposed to be made. 

It is suggested that a central masters' department for the 
common law divisions of the High Court of Justice should be 
formed which should furnish all the clerks and o£5cials necessary 
for the due administration of justice in town or on circuit ; 
the fourth class of clerks in the existing masters' ofilces 
to be abolished, and non-established writers to be substituted ; and 
that ''associates" should become assistant masters, with the powers 
and duties of masters, and a salary of £1200. Further, that the 
contingency of circuit overlapping the Nisi Prius sittings in 
London being provided for, the associates, thus united with the 
central office staff, or such other of the officers on that staff as may 
be arranged by the masters, should form part of the circuit staff; 
that no clerks of assize should be appointed in future, the duty of 
clerk of assize being discharged by an officer supplied from the 
central masters' department, such officer to discharge also the 
duties of clerk of arraigns or of indictment!), and other officers 
required on circuit to be supplied from the same source ; that only 
one master and one master's clerk should attend the court in banco ; 
that as vacancies occur, masterships, to the number of four, should 
not to be filled up without proof of necessity and special ap- 
proval. It is further proposed that the Queen's Coroner and 
Attorney should not attend as master except on days when the 
Crown paper is taken, the plea side master making notes for him 
on other days ; that the title of Queen's Coroner should be retained, 
and that of Master of the Queen's Bench added to it, with the pay of 
a master. That the office staff of the Crown Office should become 
part of the staff of the central department ; that the office and 
title of Queen's Remembrancer should be abolished on the next 
vacancy, the duties to be discharged in the master's department ; 
that the distinctive offices of registry of judgments, and registry 
of married women's acknowlecbments, should be merged m the 
central masters' department, and the registrarships be abolished 
at the first fitting opportunity; that the senior usher in each 
court should do the duty of tipstaff, having £50 a year added to 
bis pay for that purpose, the Queen's Bench, nevertheless, to 
retain one tipstaff. 

Finally, on this branch of the question, it is recommended that 
a ooiomibtee, to be nominated by the Lord Chancellor and other 
prejidents of divisions, in consultation with the Treasury, should 
be appointed, six months after the Judicature Act shall have come 
into operation, to consider and report what should be the exact 
numbers and salaries of officers and clerks in the Central Masters' 

Kext, as to the Lord Chancellor's officers, &c., it is suggested 

that the salary of principal secretary need not exceed £1 000 ; 
and it is recommended that the post of secretary of commissions 
should be abolished on a vacancy, and a clerk at £200 a year be 
appointed on the staff of the principal secretary for commission 

Some recommendations of a minor character as to nsbers are 
made, and the commission proposes the immediate abolition of 
the offices of clerk of the patents, messenger or pursuivant of the 
Great Seal, derk of the petty bag, Attomey-Geueral's patent 
bill office, and the transfer of bulk of the duties to the clerk of 
the Crown, any remaining writ or enrolment business of the 
petty bag to be transferred to the writ and enrolment offices in 

The commissioners recommend the abolition of the office of 
solicitor to the High Court of Chancery. Upon this subject the 
following observations are made : " This officer is in private prac- 
tice. He receives £600 a year as salary, and £400 more for ex- 
penses, and pays his own clerks. His functions are to protect the 
Suitors' Fund, and to administer, under the direction of the court, 
80 much of it as now comes under the spending power of the 
court. He acts for parties in pauper suits, when so directed by 
the Judge, and for those who have, through ignorance or forget- 
fulness, been guilty of contempt of court by not answering 
process. Every quarter he visits Holloway Prison to see 
and report upon any prisoners of the Court of Chancery, and he 
takes up intermediately any case requiring assistance. He assists 
the Assistant Paymaster- General in preparing the Chancery esti- 
mates for Parliament, and he acts generally as a solicitor in all 
cases in which the several Courts of Chancery require such 
services. However useful the services of this officer may have 
been in former times, it appears to us that the necessity for the 
office has now, in a great measure, passed away. When all 
salaries and expenses of the court were paid from the Suitors' 
Fee Fund, it was perhaps a legal necessity that there should be 
an order filed in proper form for every payment, and the duties 
of this officer largely consisted in the preparation of such orders. 
Now, however, that all such payments are voted by Parliament, 
we question if these orders have not become superfluous." 

Proceeding to the Chancery departments, we find it recom- 
mended that two of the clerks of records and writs, and the clerk 
of enrolments, should be abolished ; that two lower grades in the 
Record and Writ and Enrolment Offices should be filled by writers ; 
that arrangements should, however, bo made for constructing a 
writ, process, judgment, and general record office, common to the 
High Court and Court of Appeal, under one head, with a deputy. 
As regards the Registrars' Office, whilst no collective opinion is 
offered, the following suggestions are submitted as worthy of 
consideration : (a) The employment of a sworn shorthand writer 
in court to take down judgments, (b) The drawing of orders 
by the winning solicitors, (c) Whether more orders mi^t 
not be drawn at chambers, and the present practice in re- 
spect of decrees for winding - up companies be made gene- 
rally applicable to all matters disposea of in chambers. It 
is suggested that the salaries of Chancery registrars need 
not exceed those of corresponding officers in other divisions ; 
that the staff of assistant clerks might be much reduced by con- 
centration of offices. remarked that the work of the Chancery 
pay office seems to admit of simplification by reducing length of 
titles of accounts, and by this means the number of clerks might 
possibly be reduced ; and that no addition to the staff should be 
allowed without considering this point. That established clerks 
in the pay office might to some extent be replaced by writers, and 
the salaries of the principal clerks might be reduced to £650 or 
£700 per annum. As regards taxation of costs, it is suggested 
that the delay now complained of might be remedied if chief clerks 
had power to tax costs of proceedings originated and completed 
in chambers. The salaries of taxing masters, it is said, need not 
exceed £1500 per annum ; and their assistant clerks might be 
reduced in numbers, and should be paid only £150, rising by £10 
per annum, after five years' service, to £250 per annum. 

Dealing with the Lunacy departments the Commissioners say 
that two junior clerks need not be attached to the masters in 
lunacy. The circuit clerks might probably do their work ; but, if 
not, one junior clerk for both masters would be quite sufficient; 
the work now done by the chief clerk and two junior clerks in the 
examination of accounts might be done by two clerks at the most. 
The same may be said of the work now done by the clerk of secu- 
rities, his assistant clerk, and the clerk of the papers. The mileage 
allowance to the masters should be stopped, aua only their actual 
travelling expenses reimbursed. In the office of visitors of lunatics, 
it is said, there appears no necessity for a secretary, and there are 
more established clerks than the work will justify. The chief 
clerk to the visitors mi^ht do the duties of the secretary, or the 
office might be combined with that of chief clerk to the 
masters. The place of the fourth clerk might be supplied 
by a writer. It is also recommended that the visitors' mileage 
allowance should be abolished, and only their actual outlay 
repaid. That the office of registrar in lunacy should not 
continue on its present footing. His duties might be done *» 
a secretary for lunacy business to the Lord Chancellor, at •- 
salary than £1000 a-year. His staff of clerks also s/ 

Digitized by 

; Google 



[Nov. 28, 1874. 

reduction. Attention is recalled to the recommendations of the 
select committee of the House of Commons on lunatics in 1860 : 
first, that increased jurisdiction should be given to the masters, 
and their position assimilated to that of chief clerks in Chancery, 
giving power of oral communication with the Loi-d Chancellor or 
the Lords Justices, whereby the work of their office and of that 
of the registrar in lunacy would be reduced ; and, secondly, that 
the visiting of Chancery lunatics should be undertaken by the 
Commissioners in Lunacy. 

We shall in this article only further refer to the London Court 
of Bankruptcy. As regards the senior registrar's department, 
attention is drawn to the large list of compensatKd clerks said to 
be desirous of re-employment. It is observed that the registrars' 
salaries were not increased in 1869, when judicial duties were 
given them, and are less than those of Common Law masters, 
although their work is not inferior in kind. And it is recom- 
mended that the salaries and classification of the clerks should 
be on an uniform scale throughout the Bankruptcy departments. 
The above remarks as to employment of clerks on the compensa- 
tion list, and uniformityof classification are said to apply equally to 
the office of registrar for arrangement proceedings and of appeals. 
As regards the office of official assignee, its work, it is urged, might 
be wound up quicker if it were kept open for six hours a day. Care 
shouldalso bctakennotto fiUJany vacancywithout special approval. 
The duties of the provisional assignee and receiver in insolvency, 
and of the examiner and solicitor to the late Court for Insolvent 
Debtors, might, the Commissioners think, so long as they last, be 
distributed between the official assignee and the official solicitor to 
the London Court of Bankruptcy. For this additional duty, the 
official solicitor might receive an extra £300 per annum, which 
should diminish and cease with such duty. 

However inactive the past session may have been in a purely 
political sense, it has certainly been far from barren in enactments 
■which affect the general character of our jurisprudence. The lav? 
of real property has in particular undergone many important 
modifications. We have had a Married Women's Property Act, a 
Powers Amendment Act ; the Statutes of Limitations have been 
altered, or rather in effect repealed, and we now have an " Act to 
Amend the Law of Vendor and Purchaser, and further to simplify 
Title to Laud." The latter statute, which is one of truly com- 
mendable conciseness and brevity, may be described as being 
simply of a revolutionary character. The effect of reading the 
present statute upon a conveyancer of the old school, nourished 
upon Pearne's Contingent Remainders, versed in the mysteries 
involved in attendant and satisfied terms, the supposed scintilla 
juris and other metaphysical abstractions which one finds in old 
law books, would, we imagine, be startling in the extreme, 
especially when he came to that section which for some purposes 
practically abolishes the distinction between real and personal 
property. In this connection it may be useful to notice the 
striking analogy between the English and the Roman law in this 
respect. The history of Roman law, as Sir Henry Maine has 
pointed out, is the history of the assimilation of res nianeipito 
res non-mancipt ; and though these two divisions of property do 
not precisely correspond with our " real" and " personal," still the 
process is closely analogous to what has taken place in our own 
jurisprudence, where the law of real property has been more or less 
eimplifled on the model of personal. 

We must, however, notice the provisions of the Act more in 
detail ; as almost every paragraph embodies a charge of momen- 
tous importance. The first section enacts that forty years instead 
of sixty shall be the period for commencement of title ; subject, 
however, to the proviso that an earlier title may be required in 
those cases where a purchaser may now demand more than sixty 
years. An earlier title may now be required where the documents 
give rise to the suspicion that estates tail still subsist, or where, 
in a word, there are doubtful and suspicious circumstances con- 
nected with the earliest document produced. It is well, perhaps, 
that this saving clause is added. If, however, we were to mea- 
sure the probable results of an Act like the present, simply by the 
difference between the periods marked as the root of title, we 
should greatly underrate its magnitude. The indirect conse- 
ouences of such an enactment are of even greater importance 
tnan the direct. It is not as though purchasers never gave a fair 
price for property with less than a strictly marketable title. On 
the contrary, full value is often given where fifty, and even forty 
years is the longest period during which the title can be 
traced; and that too, even by the Court of Chancery itself. 
"In fact such purchases are constantly sanctioned by 
the Court of Chancery;" and in some circumstances the 
court will sanction purchases " with a title very far from 
marketable : " Dart's V. & P., p. 80. We may therefore infer 
that hereafter it will be a very common practice to buy land on a 
twenty-five or thirty years' title— nay the court itself may invest 
the funds of its suitors in property as questionable. The old 
period was fixed on the measure of a tolerably long life ; the 
present period is practically half such a lifetime or a little more. 
Of course much may be said in favour of the change on the 

ground of the greater publicity given in modern times to sales 
and transfers of lands, by means of advertisements circulated far 
and wide, and of the consequent multiplication and greater 
accessibiUty of documentary evidence of different kinds. Pre- 
diction in such a case is obviously out of the question, but we 
trust that our law-makers have long and earnestly considered the 
question from all points of view before introducing a measure so 

The second section, with its sub-divisions, is of scarcely less 
importance. The first of these sub-sections is that a lessee or 
assignee of a lease is no longer to be entitled to examine the title 
to the freehold. To estimate this change aright, we must consider 
it in connection with the foregoing paragraph. A twenty-five or 
thirty years' title will hereafter, as we have seen, probably iu many 
cases be the ultimate foundation for a lease of sixty or seventy 
years or longer, and perhaps one or two under leases for twenty- 
one years or less. We presume, however, that the lessee or 
assignee, if he discover from independent investigation, a flaw in 
the freehold title, will bo allowed to plead that knowledge so as to 
avoid specific performance. It will, no doubt, be open to the 
intended lessee or assignee to stipulate in the agreement or 
before the actual execution of the lease, for an inspection of the 
freehold title ; but we are not sure that it would not have been 
better to leave the lessor to take care of his own interests. The 
second sub-division embodies what is commonly inserted in con- 
ditions and agreements for sale, that recitals, statements, and 
descriptions of facts, &c., contained in deeds, Acts of Parliament, 
or statutory declarations twenty years old, shall form what is 
termed by writers on jurisprudence aprccsiimptio juris, not a prce- 
Bumptio juris et de jure ; a presumption, that is, which is to be 
taken as true until proved to be false. To this probably no serious 
objection will be taken, nor to that which follows, which makes an 
equitable right to have copies of documents of title produced 
of equal value with a legal right of the same kind. But it is 
not equally obvious why the preseent rule as to the possession o£ 
deeds when an estate has been sold to dificrent purchasers shouldi 
be altered. It certainly seems the preferable plan for the pur- 
chaser of the most valuable part to take the deeds and covenant 
for their production, rather than for the vendor to keep them, 
however small a portion he may retain. Such alterations of the 
law seem to be gratuitous, especially where it is so easy in each 
particular case to modify the ordinary practice. Questions of this 
kind are surely best left to the operation of voluntaiy contract. 
The new rule, however, may be beneficial in freeing vendors from 
the necessity of obtaining valuations of the unsold part of their 
property, in order to determine which lot is of the greater value. 
The 3rd section of the Act appears to be od'oee. We cannot see 
why it should be necessary to state explicitly that trustees are 
to be subject in sales and purchases to the same rules as govern 
other vendors and purchasers. And the marginal note here, is, 
as usual, obscure, " Trustees may sell, &c., notwithstanding rules." 
The words of the section are : " Trustees who are either vendors 
or purchasers may sell or buy without excluding the application 
of the '2ud section of this Act." The true analysis would therefore 
be, " Trustees may sell, &c., in accordance with rules." The 
latter, perhaps, is so exceedingly like an identical proposition that 
it probably never occurred to the writer that it was, nevertheless, 
the true significance of a law solemnly passed by the Legislature. 
The 4th section goes very far in the direction of Lord Mansfield's 
wish to make a mortgage a simple charge upon the land, and in 
all respects personal property. As so great a step has been taken, 
it is perhaps a pity that a complete measure has not been passed. 
The law of mortgage is made unnecessarily complex ; as, for some 
purposes, a mortgage is real property, being an out-and-out con- 
veyance of the legal estate, whilst for others it is personal, as the 
mortgage debt passes to the personal representatives of the mortga- 
gee. The present statute leaves the law still more anomalous than it 
was, and will, we suspect, require to be supplemented. The form of 
the deed will apparently still be a conveyance of the legal estate 
to the mortgagee, his heirs, and assigns ; but the new law makes 
that legal estate transferable by the personal representatives of 
the mortgagee, in whom it neverj vested. Truly English statute 
law partakes of the illogical character which belongs to most of 
our institutions. It is noticeable, too, that the form of the section 
is permissive : The legal personal representative may convey. Are 
we to infer from this that the mortgagor, on payment of the debt 
and interest, can elect from whom to demand a reconveyance? 
The succeeding section tends equally to render uncertain and 
indefinable the lines which separate real from personal pro- 
perty. The bare legal estate in fee simple of a trustee 
13 to vest in his executor or administrator. There are 
many difficulties and ambiguities attending the present 
Law of Mortgages and Trusts, but it seems a singularly strange 
way of remedying them to enact, as the present Act apparently 
does, that a conveyance to persons, their heirs and assigns, shall 
by implication, vest an estate in their executors and administra- 
tors. We were under the impression that our law did not favour 
estatates by implication. The purpose which actuated the 
framers of this Statute was unquestionably good ; but they have 
not considered all that was involved in those branches of law 
which they set themselves to alter, and consequently their work 

Digitized by 


Nov. 28, 1874.] 



is onesided and only tends to make confasion worse confounded. 
The great underlying question is whether the existing difference 
in the devolution of real and personal property is right and 
desirable. Mr. Joshua Williams thinks not, and we are of the 
same opinion. If the distinction in this respect were done away 
in addition to the greater fairness and justness in the law, there 
wonid also be greater clearness and freedom from ambiguity. 

That object of unfailing solicitude on the part of the Legisla- 
ture, the married woman, does not of course escape notice in this 
most comprehensive statute. Fortunately so little is said about 
her that sne will have no cause of complaint, and that little is 
perfectly unexceptionable. It is to the effect that when she is a 
bare trustee she may convey or surrender as if she were a/eme 
toU. The succeeding section, however, the seventh, is more 
startling. It seems that tacking of mortgages, and other charges 
and interests, is no longer to be allowed. We do not question 
that this is a most salutary change. It will give both greater 
scope and greater safety to investments on real securities. The 
old rule was founded on technicalities of English law, and cer- 
tainly had no foundation in the first principles of morality. 
Hereafter the security of a loan upon mortgage will be exactly 
proportioned to the value of the property minus incumbrances 
already created. Equitable owners will find it easier to borrow 
on reasonable t«rms, and a wider field will be open to investors. 
And even the Court of Chancery itself will not hesitate to lend 
the funds at its disposal upon a second charge. 

The 8th section deals with a question which sadly needs authori- 
tative determination — we mean the question of registration. 
Where a will devising land in Middlesex or Yorkshire has not 
been registered, an assurance by the devisee or anyone claiming 
nnder him, if registered before, is to prevail over any assurance 
from the testator's heir at law. As we might expect, the enact- 
ment is too narrow and not explicit enough. It only deals with 
one class of cases, and it seems doubtful how far it really alters 
the law as to them. Are we to infer that if it is not registered 
in dne time, it shall not in any case take such precedence ? If we 
are, then the present rule is repealad by implication. For " in 
equity registration is no protection against an unregistered 
assurance of which the party claiming under the registered instru- 
ment had notice prior to the completion of his purchase or 
security" : Dart's V. & P., p. 780. If we are to gather that the 
purchaser from the heir is, upon registration, to have prece- 
dence only in case he has not had notice, express or construc- 
tive, of the prior unregistered deed, then it is a great pity that 
the Act does not say so ; and it only adds another difiiculty to a 
subject which was already sufiiciently ntricate. We need only 
notice of the concluding sections that they seem to provide a 
rapid remedy for dificulties arising from contracts for sale. 

Rules op Court. 
^^^^_ (Continued from page 22.) 

^^^H Order XXIV. — Am£><i)ment of Pleading. 
^BRnles of pleading now in force often impose upon a plaintiff 
Hdt defendant great hardship, by reason of the conditions under 
■which amendment is allowed. A party desiring to amend at 
present must apply for leave to the court or a judge, and he only 
obtains leave upon the payment of all costs. It frequently happens 
that, by reason of a slip on the part of the pleader, an omission of 
importance, or an averment which cannot be supported, is made. 
To require a party to go through the formula of applying to the 
judge for leave to amend is simply to impose upon him the cost 
of attendance in court or at chambers with no real benefit, for 
such amendments are practicallv allowed in all cases upon the 
payment of costs. The new rules propose to remedy this. A 
plaintiff will be entitled to amend bis statement of claim once, 
without leave, at any time before the expiration of the time limited 
for replying, or, where no defence is delivered, at any time before 
the expiration of four weeks from the appearance of the defendant 
who snail have last appeared. A defendant who has set up in his 
defence any set-off or counter-claim may, without any leave, amend 
his set-off or counter-claim, at any time before the time for plead- 
ing to the reply, and before pleading thereto, or, if there be no 
reply, then at any time before the expiration of twenty-eight 
days from the filing of his defence. 

There would seem to be two defects in these provisions. First, 
there is nothing which enables a plaintiff, where his writ is 
specially indorsed and a statement of claim has been dispensed 
with, to amend his indorsement. An indorsement is in the nature of 
aittatement of claim, and ought to be similarly capable of amend- 
ment. Secondly, a defendant is only atloivcd to amend his defence 
without leave if he sets up a set-off on counter-claim. Now it is 
evident that if a plaintiff amends his statement, a defendant may 
have to amend his defence so as to meet the amended statement. 
Why should a defendant in such a case be required to obtain leave 
to amend his defence ? Under the rules, as they now stand, a 
defendant would clearly have to apply in that case to amend his 
defence, and this would impose costs upon both himself and the 
plaintiff which are wholly unnecessary. There ought to be a rule 

providing that where a plaintiff amends the defendant should be 
at liberty to amend without leave. It is true that something of 
this sort is provided by the third and fourth rules of the order, 
but it is unsatisfactory. Where any party has amended his plead- 
ing under the preceding rules, the opposite party may, within 
eight days of the delivery to him of the amended pleading, apply 
to the court or a judge to disallow the amendment, or any part 
thereof, and the court or judge may, if satisfied that the justice 
of the case requires it, disallow the same, or allow it, subject to 
such terms as to costs or otherwise as may seem just, or the other 
party may apply to amend his former pleading. It is no doubt 
quite right that power should be given to disallow an amendment, 
but to impose an obligation to apply to the court to put the 
amending party under terms as to costs or as to allowing an 
amendment of the defence or reply, is imposing an obligation 
which simply incurs unnecessary costs. It would be far simpler 
to allow any amendment to be mcule without leave in a pleading 
answering an amended statement or reply, requiring a party to 
apply only in case he wishes to have the amendment rejected, or 
terms as to trial imposed. 

Very general powers of amendment are given ; any party 
may apply, in cases not provided for by the rules already 
mentioned, for leave to amend either to the court or judge at 
chambers, or to the judge at the trial of the action, and such 
amendment may be allowed upon such terms as to costs or other- 
wise as may seem just. At the same time to provide against 
these powers of amendment being used for purposes of delay, it 
is provided that it a party who has obtained an order for leave to 
amend a pleading delivered by him does not amend the same 
within the time limited for that purpose by the order, or if no 
time is thereby limited, then within fourteen days from the date 
of the order such order to amend shall, on the expiration of such 
limited time of a such fourteen days, as the case may be, become 
ipso facto void, unless the time is extended by the court or a judge. 

It will be remembered that every pleading containing mora 
than three folios must, under these rules, be printed. To require 
amendments of printed pleadings to take place in all cases by 
having the whole reset and reprinted in accordance with the 
amendment would entail great and unnecessary expense upon the 
party amending. Where the amendment required is only of » 
few words, a correction in writing of the printed pleading is 
clearly intelligible and amply sufficient. Wnere, however, the 
amendment requires great alteration of the original pleading, it is 
obviously right that the party amending should be required to 
amend in a way which will make his pleading intelligible to his 
adversaiy and to the court trying the case. This is provided for by 
the seventh rule of the order. A pleading may be amended by 
written alterations in the pleading which has been delivered, and 
by additions on paper to be interleaved therewith if necessary, 
unless the amendments require the insertion of more than 144 
words in any one place, or are so numerous, or of such a nature 
that the making them in writing would render the pleading 
difficult or inconvenient to read, in either of which cases the 
amendment must be made by delivering a print of the pleadings 
as amended. This is a reasonable provision, but its operation 
might be extended so as to cover pleadings which, although not 
delivered, have been printed ; when once printed, any alteration 
is expensive, and there is no reason why short amendments 
should not be made in writing before delivery. To effect this 
object, it is necessary to express it in a rule, on account of the 
express provision requiring pleadings over a given length to be 

Whenever any pleading is amended, it must be marked with 
the date of the order, if any, under which the same is so amended, 
and of the day on which such amendment is made. In the rule by 
which this is prescribed (Rule 8), the framers of the rules have 
departed from their usual custom of placing all forms in the 
schedules to the rule and confining the rules to directions, the 
illustrations of which are given in the schedules. Nor is this 
departure from their practice any advantage, for it certainly does 
not clearly illustrate the rule. Two dates have to be placed upon an 
amended pleading ; the date of the order under which the amend- 
ment is made, and the date of the amendment itself. If the form 
given in the rule were followed, only the date of the amendment 
would appear on the pleading. 

An amended pleadmg must be delivered to the opposite party 
within the time allowed for amending the same. For instance, if a 
plaintiff amend his statement of claim without leave, he must 
deliver his amended statement to the defendant before the time 
for the delivery of his reply has expired. If a party amends by 
leave of the court he must deliver his amendrntn*; within the time 
limited by the order for amendment, or if no order be made as 
to time, then within fourteen days of the date of the 
order. We presume tliat the intention of these rules is that if a 
party does not deliver an amendment for which he has obtained 
leave within the time allowed, the original pleading shall stand 
good, and the action proceed as if no order for amendment had 
been made. It would be very desirable that some rule should be 
inserted nnder this order, showing what time a party is to be 
allowed to answer an amended pleading, and what effect such 
amendment is to have in delaying the trial of the action. 

digitized by 


SUl/U ^H 



[Nov. 28, 1874. 



Second Report of the Commit sioners appointed 
to inqnire into the Administrative Departments 
of the Court of Justice. 

(CoHtinued from ftagc 42.) 
In 1815, the nomination of tlerkd and aeaistants 
was vested in the hands of the several ofBeera, 
and their salaries were regulated by custom, or in 
some cases according to Bpeoial arranjfements 
between appointor and nominee. No special 
qualification was required, and no examination for 
fitness was prescribed ; but with regard to what 
still seems to be looked upon os an exceptional 
office in chancery, the Registrar's office it 
appears that even in 1740 the Deputy Registers' 
clerk of the reports, and two clerks of the entries, 
"have from time to time been nominated and 
appointed out of the clerks bred up undey the 
Deputy Registers." 

Honrs of attendance were, in 1815, seven daily 
in many of the offices, viz. : from 10 till 3, and 
again from 6 till 8 in the office of Masters in 
Chancery ; from 10 till 2 and from 5 till 8 in the 
Registrar's office ; whilst in the Accountant- 
General's oHioo eight hours were prescribed, viz., 
from 9 till 2 an 1 from 4 till 7 ; in the Crown office 
of the King's Bench, the hour.^ were from 10 a.m. 
till 2 p.m., and fiom 4 till 8 p.m. : in some of the 
other offices from 11 till 2, and from 5 till 7. Dis- 
tinction was made between term and non-term, 
in favour of less attendance out of term, and 
there were nemerons whole holidays, equal in the 
aggregate, in some offices, to ninety working days 
in the year. 

As we have snid, for some reason which does 
not now appear the Commissioners appointed in 
1732 did not jiresent any report upon the common 
law courts or offices. Moreover, as already 
noticed, their report on the chancery, though 
presented in 1740, was not made public till 1815, 
and no attempt appears to have been made by 
the Government before that date to understand 
and deal comprehensibly with the courts adminis- 
tering the common law. The Commi-ssioners 
appointed in 1815 laid stress on the difficulty under 
'which they laboured in dealing with the common 
law courts, by the absence of the same sort of 
guide a.s they had in the Commissioners' report 
of 1740, for dealing with the Court of Chancery. 
They proceeded, however, with their work by the 
li^ht of the reports furnished by the sub-com- 
missions in 1740, and of certain Parliamentary 
returns, presented to the House of Commons in 
1693 and again in 17:J0 and 1731, showing the fees 
payable to judges, officers and clerk in all courts 
of the Kingdom. But in discharging their duties 
the Commissioners confined themselves, as they 
had done in chancery, to ascertain the propriety 
of fees payable at the time of their inquiry, to 
describing the functions of judges and officers, 
and to statements as to the hours of attendance 
and the number of holidays taken. They do not 
appear to have considered themselves warranted 
in making any suggestions for altering the depart- 
mental machinery as they fonnd it. 
Reports were presented on the — 

Court of King's Bench 5th Jan., 1818. 

Court of Com mou Pleas 3rd July, 1819, 

Court of Kxchequer and Ex- 
chequer Cljiimber 9th Feb., 1822. 

Court of Arches "\ 

Preroi;ativn Court f 16th May, 1823 

Court of Peculiars ) 

Coueistory ( ourt and the Court 
of Commi!.Sjry of the Bishop 
of Londou and the Deaconriea * 
of Miiidle^ex and Barking ... 4th July, 1823. 

Hi.h C urt of Admiralty ■) 

High Court of Delegates } 7th Feb., 1E21. 

High Court ofAppeals forPrizes) 
From this time the work of law revision and 
law reform was vigorously pushed on. The report 
of the Chancery commissioners in 182G, the six 
reports made between 1823 and 1834, by the Com- 
missioners for inquiring in the practice and pro- 
ceedings of the Superior Courts of Common Law ; 
the repcrt in 1832, on the practice and jurisdiction 
of the Ecclesiastical Courts ; the four repqrts of 
the Real Property Commissioners (1829-18.33) ; 
the eight reports on the criminal law (1834-18-15) ; 
and the report in 1810 on bankruptcy and insol- 
vency, were the parents of statutes which changed 
the character of English law, and altered its 
practice and procedure. 

Between 1809 and 1845 nnmcrons reports were 
received from Commissioners appointed to inquire 
into the administration of justice in Scotland. 
Between 1817 and 1831 Irish Commissioners pre- 
sented twentyone reports on the duties, salaries, 
and emoluments of the several officers, clerks, and 
ministers of justice in all temporal and ecclesias- 
tical courts in Ireland. In 1842 was given a report 
from commissioners directed to enquire, with a 
■view to revision, into the superior courts of com. 
mon law in Ireland; and in 186G a further exhans- 
tive statement, largely used by us in our present 

inquiries, was presented by commissioners ap- 
pointed to inquire into the differences of practice 
between the courts of chancery and common law 
in England and Ireland. Finally, the labours of 
the judicature commission, resulting as they have 
already in the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 
have once more changed the aspect of legal pro- 
cedure, and have necessitated those inquiries into 
the administrative departments of Ithe courts of 
justice which the present commissioners have been 
directed to prosecute. 

It will not be necessary for the furtherance of 
those inquiries to refer to all the reports of com- 
missioners thus enumerated, nor to cite all the 
statutes which were founded on them. Those 
relating to Scotland and Ireland will be reserved 
for future consideration ; and of those relating 
only to England, it will be enough to quote such 
as are strictly germane on the objects entrusted 
to us. Chief among these are the statutes which 
abolished fees as a means of remunerating officers 
and clerks, &c., and gave them salaries payable 
from public or special court funds ; the report of 
a departmental commission, which, in 1831, re- 
commended the consolidation of certain common 
law offices ; that of a committee, which, in 1867, 
recommended the abolition of the offices of clerk 
of the patents, clerk of the petty bag, messenger 
to the great seal, and the Attorney General's 
patent bill office ; and the statutes which author- 
ised the last changes which took place in chancery 
and common law offices, and which left them as 
wo n®w find them. 

The effect of these staintes and alterations upon 
the legal departments as they stood in 17-40 and 
1815, may be seen quickly in the tabular state- 
ments annexed. These statements show the staff 
of each court as it existed at those dates, so far 
at least as officers and their recognised deputies 
and clerks are concerned. It shows also the pre- 
sent statf, and quotes the statutes under which 
successive changes took place. 

Under the head of each officer or office in each 
of the courts within the scope of our inquiry we 
propose to give — 

(n) A condensed history of the office. 

(5) A condensed account of its present dnties. 

(c) A statement of the present cost, and of 

the salaries and numbers of officers and 
clerks attached. 

(d) A statement of the conditions of entry, 
service, promotion, superannuation, and 

(e) A summary of the evidence taken before 

as, both in fall commission and on visits 
to the offices. 
(/) Such remarks as we have considered it 
within our province to make upon the 
facts as we have ascertained them. 

"We shall offer, in addition, certain suggestions 
upon matters affecting the legal departments as a 
whole, including questions of attendance and holi- 
days, and questions of consolidation of offices 
discharging kindred functions. In doing this we 
have endeavoured, as far as possible, to avoid 
interference in matters relating to practice and 
procadnre, deeming such matters to be foreign to 
onr inquiry and beyond us. It has not been pos- 
sible, however, in all cases to acoompLsh this. 
Questions of organisation depend very largely 
upon practice, and in dealing with the one subject 
we have not always been able to avoid touching 
upon the other. In such cases we have en- 
deavoured to fortify our conclusions by reference 
to experienced officers and to some distinguished 
judges who have favoured us with their opinions. 

We further beg, in this place, and in view of 
any changes of statf which may flow from the 
recommendations wo shall venture to make to 
your Majesty, to repeat the opinion expressed at 
page 5 of our first report, viz. : — 

"6. Wo would, moreover, express our entire 
concurrence in the recommendation contained in 
the eighth paragraph of the third report of the 
select committee on civil service expenditure, 
1873, 'that reductions should be effected rather 
by an entire cessation of appointments to the 
clerical service, and by transfers from one de- 
partment to another, than by superannuating (on 
terms of abolition of office) the clerks who may 
be fonnd to bo redundant in particular offices.' " 
SurEiuoB Courts of Common Law (Kngland). 

Considering first the Superior Courts of Com- 
mon Law according to the method indicated in our 
preface, we beg reference to the tables A, B, and 
C, which show at a glance the changes that have 
taken place in the staff of the three courts 
between the dates of the three commissions of 
inquiry into their constitution. 

It may be as well, however, to interpret the 
table by the following remarks, viz : — 

The first legislative alteration of the adminis- 
trative departments, as they existed in 1815, was 
the 6 Geo. 4, c.82, which made due provision out 
of the Consolidated Fund for the Chief Justice of 
the Court of King's Bench, and took away the 
right of the Chief Clerk (an office commonly held 
by the Chief Justice himself) and of the Custos 
Brevium on the plea aide of the court to sell a 

number of offices paid by fees, which were allowed 
to be within the power to sell of those officers. 
The 6 Geo. 4, c. 83, did the same thing with 
regard to a number on offices in the Court of Com- 
mon Pleas. 

An Act passed in the same session, G Geo. 4, 
c. 89, authorised the purchase by the St^te of the 
office of Receiver and Comptroller of the Seal of 
the Court of King's Bench and Common Pleas, 
and of the office of Custos Brevium of the Court 
of Common Pleas. This office was one of large 
profit. Itlwas exercised by deputy, and it ma 
the fruitful source of delay and expense to the 
suitors. It appears from the recital of the Act 
that the office of Comptroller of the Seal was 
granted by letters-patent under the Great Seal of 
England, dated the 30th April, in the twenty-fifth 
year of the reign of King Charles the Second, to 
Henry, Earl of Euston, afterwards Duke of Graf, 
ton, in tail male ; and that the offico of Castes 
Brevium was, after the determination of certain 
Uvea then subsisting, granted in trust from the 
then Earl and Countess of Lichfield, and for the 
issne of the Countess in tail. Though power was 
thus given in 1825 to buy up these rights, it was 
not till 1845 that any bargain was struck as re- 
gards the first named office. Then, by virtue of 8 
& 9 Vict., 0. 34, the office was abolished in con- 
sideration of an annuity of .£843 to the Duke of 
Grafton, and of .£300 to his deputy, John Pimlott. 
The duty of sealing writs was ordered thereafter 
to be discharged by the masters of the coorta 
respectively. The office of Costos BroWum was 
abolished by 1 Viet., o. 30, which empowered the 
Treasury to award compensation to the persons 
entitled, of which they are still in the receipt. 

In 1830 the Act of 11 Geo. 4. & 1 WilL 4, 
c. 70, abolished the separate jurisdiction of the 
County Palatine of Chester, and of the Princi- 
pality of Wales, and incidentally affected the plea 
side of the Court of Exchequer in Westmister. 
Tlie business of that court was increased, and in 
1832 the staff was remodelled. 

In 1837 the 7 Will. 4 & 1 Tict., c. 30, pro- 
ceeding upon the report of four eommissioners 
appointed under an earlier statute, recited : — 

" Whereas, in Her Majesty's Superior Courta of 
Common Law at Westminster there are many 
officers whose duties have wholly or in part ceased 
or are executed by deputy, and whose offices haTe 

become, by changes in the law, useless 

And whereas the continuance of sinecure and 
useless offices tends to impair the effective admin- 
istration of justice, and to cast upon the public 
and the suitoru in ,thoso courts unnecessary bur- 

It then proceeded to abolish, as coming within 
range of this preamble, — 

The offices numbered 8 to 25, inclusive, 33 and 
34 in table A, being 20 in the Queen's BenoK 
The offices numbered 1 to 16, inclusive, in table 
B, being 16 in the Common Pleas. The offices 
numbered 4 to 7, 19 to 22, and 25 inclusive, in 
table C, being 9 in the Exchequer. 

I abolished the office of Clerk of the Errors in 
in the Exchequer Chamber, and directed the duties 
to be discharged by the Masters of the Court from 
which error should come. 

Doing away with many distinct officers with 
distinctive titles, the Act created the office of 
master, with a salary of il200 a-year in lien of 
all fees ; assigned five masters to each of tb« 
Superior Courts, and laid upon them the obliga- 
tions which had attached to all the abolished 
officials. The first five masters of each court 
were named in the Act, and it was provided that 
npon the death, resignation, or removal of any 
of them, the Chief Judge, in whose court the 
vacancy had occurred, should not bo at liberty 
to fill it up until he had certilied, under his 
hand, to the Treasury, that, after minute in- 
quiry, it appeared to himself and the other 
judges of the court absolutely necessary for 
the efficient and satisfactory conduct of the 
business of the court that the full number of five 
masters should be retained ; and it was required 
that this certificate should be forthwith laid 
before Parliament, and that no appointment 
should be made to the vacancy until the certi- 
ficate had lain ten days before both houses. 
Whether intentionally, however, or not, the Act 
is so worded that these provisions applied only to 
vacancies in the offices of the particular masters 
then appointed, so that there is now no Parlia- 
mentary restriction upon the filling up of any 
vacancy which may occur. Such clerks and 
messengers as might be deemed necessary by the 
chief judge of each court were ordered to be sup. 
plied to the master's office, but the distribution 
of the business among them w»s left entirely to 
the masters, and the distinctive character of the 
detailed sections of work was abolished. 

Section 23 of this Act conferred upon the 
masters a power which we cannot learn has been 
much exercised, if exercised at all, but which wo 
lay stress npon as being entirely in sympathy 
with one of the principal recommendations we 
shall humbly venture to make to your Hajesty- 
This section, tnith the avowed object of ezpedit- 

Jigitized by 


Nov. 28, 1874.] 



g the general basmesB of the three ooorta, 
apowered the nuuitera to tax oosta arising ont of 
kueea determined in the three oonrts iadisori- 


The Act 5 & 6 Viet. o. 86, reoitingr that, hj 

Viot. o. 5, the eqnitr jariadiotion of the 
ourt of Exchequer had oeen transferred, with 
le three oirora clerka and two aide olerka, to 
le Court of Chancery, abolished the diatinatire 
ffioea of secondary, sworn, and side clerks in the 
svenne side of the conrt, and made over the 
aties to the Queen's Bemembranoer. 

In 1842 the Act 5 Yict. o. 22, (a) abolished the 
risons of Queen's Bench, Fleet, and Harshalsea, 
nd created out of them the Queen's Prison. The 
Qicers attached to the prisons were disestablished 
n compensation ; a koe]>er of the Quean's Prison 

aa appointed, and power was taken for the 
ppointment by the Lord Chief Justice of the 
pataves theretofore appeinted for Queen's Bench 
y the Marshal of the Qoeen'a Bench Prison, and 
>r the appointment by the liOrd Chancellor, the 
lOrd Chief Justice of Common Fleas, and Lord 
hief Baron of Exchequer of ^e tipstaves thera- 
afore appointed by the Warden of the Fleet, to 
ot in Oonrts of Chancery, Common Fleas, and 

In 1862 the Queen's Prison was abolished and 
Vhiteoroaa Street Prison only was used. This 
1 1872 was superseded by Holloway Prison. 

In 1843 the crown office, which, for soma reason 
tOt now apparent, was not reorganised when the 
ffioea on the plea side of the Court of Queen's 
iench wer^ remodelled, was taken in hand. The 
'' & 7 Viot. 0. 20, recites the need there was for 
emodelling the office, and for relieving " the 
>nblio and the suitors from many ancient and 
msnitable fees." It abolished the offices num- 
Kired 2 to 7 inclusive on table A, and recognising 
ind confirming the ancient office of Queen's 
yoronerand Attorney, added to the staff of that 
>ffioo a master and an assistant-master, with anch 
ilorks as the Lord Chief Justice might think 
inongh to do the work of the office. All the 
>fficor8 and clerks were placed upon salary in lieu 
>f all fees, and anything remainine over from the 
'ees properly charged to the public under a new 
tariff, was ordeted to go into the Excheqner. 

In 18&]i the expenses of the srown office were 
pat upon the anuual votes of Parliament, all fees 
toing to the Exchequer ; and, in 1860, the office of 
kssiatant-master was abolished by 23 & 24 Viot. 
>. 54. It is in the condition in which this last 
lot left the crown office that we &nd it in 1874. 

In 1852 the old offices of marshal and clerk at 
Nisi Prius in the Queen's Bendi, and of Marshal 
in the Common PJeas and Exoheaaer, were 
abolished by 15 & 16 Viot. o. 73, and the 
Ratios up to that time discharged by those officers 
were assigned to the associate of the respective 
sonrts. The associates, who till then had held 
>ffioe during pleasure, were appointed to hold 
luring good behaviour ; the appointment of them 
iras vested in the chief of each court, and power 
vas given to each associate to appoint two clerks. 

The offices of hereditary chief prodamator in 
i» Common Fleas, and of hereditaiy ohief nsber 
n the Exchequer, were abolishedg the duties dis- 
iharged by the Utter officer and his " Messengers 
>f the Court of Exchequer " being transferred to 
he Queen's Bemembranoer. To provide for the 
>eraonal staff of the judges which was somewhat 
ntcrfered with by these changes, it was provided 
>y the Aot that the marshals of the judges should 
>e paid a sum of money to be 6xeA by the 
reasury. It was also provided that eaoh ohief 
uight appoint three clerks, and eaoh puisne 
udge two clerks to serve as hia personal staff, 
)ne of euch clerks to perform the duties of cryer 
n London and on circuit. Power was also given 
» the Lord Chief Jnstices and Lord Chief Baron 
M appoint subordinate officers to the courts, in- 
ilading nshers and courtkeepers. 

The associates, clerks of assise for perfor- 
nance of duties of associate on circuit, and all 
slerks to judges were by the same Aot put on 
salary in Uen of all fees. 

An Aot passed on the 10th June, 1865 (28 & 
29 Vict. 0. 45), provides for the collection by 
means of stamps of fees payable in the Superior 
i^oorts of Law at Westminster, and in the offices 
lelonging thereto. 

Lastly, the Act 29 & 30 Viot. o. 101, transferred 
the salaries of the masters from the fee fund to 
the consolidated fund, and raised them, after 
three years' service, to jBISOO a year. 

These are Ihe principal statutes which hare 
kSected the oonstitntion and procedure of the 
sdminiatratiTe departments of common law up to 

(a) This Aet reoitM that 'the Qoaen's Bench Prison 
IS a prison (or debtors and (or persona in oontempt of 
the Coart o( Queen's Brnch; thrt the Fleet ia a priaon 
(or debtors aud beoknipts, and (or peraona in con- 
tempt o( Ber Haje«t7'a Coorta ot Chanoary, Sxcheqner, 
and Common Pleaa ; that the Marahalaea o( Her Ka- 
iwtj'a Uoiuehold ia a priaon (or debtor* and (or 
peraons in contempt o( Her Hajaatj's Conrt* ot th* 
Uarahalaea, the Court oi the Queen's Palace at Woat- 
■ninater, and the High Conrt at Admiralty, and (or 
^dmixauypdsonaca under B«Bt*no« of Court MartiaL 

the present time ; they are, moreover, the war- 
rants for the existing order of things. 

The changes ordered by the Judicature Aot of 
1873, 36 & 37 Viot. o. 66, are very slight 
lilxisting officers are to be transferred with exist- 
ing titles, rights, and obligations, to thi> High 
Court of Justice. The only change consists in 
giving each Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chief 
Baron a secretary and two clerks instead of a 
principal clerk and two clerks ; and eaoh puisne 
judge, two clerks, whilst the work hitherto dis- 
charged by ike chamber olerks of chief and 
Suisne judges is ordered (by section 79) to be 
one by the officers of the court ia the permanent 
Civil Service of the Crown. The effect of the 
arrangements mode by the Judicature Act will 
be, not to lessen the number of the personal staff 
of the judges, but to reduce the cost. The Act, 
alao, whilst taking from the personal staff ths 
duties of ohamber olerk, imposes npon it the 
obligation " to discharge, without further remu- 
neration, the duties of crier in court or on 
circuit," and " of usher or train-bearer." We 
have it in evidence that there is no occasion or 
work for the proposed secretary to the chief 
justioes, and that the pnisue judges will not 
require two olerks. With one exception the 
second olerk of the puisne judge now has nothing 
to do but to attend to the chamber business, 
whioh will in future be done by the permanent 
staff. The result is that the second clerk will 
have nothing to do with the exception we referred 
to, that is to say, aot as crier when the judge, 
whose (derk he is, is on circuit. This duty, how- 
ever, might well be performed by the other clerk, 
who is in personal attendance on the judge, or by 
one of the officers of the central masters' depart- 
ment, of which as hereafter explained, we recom- 
mend the formation. 

From the foregoing it appears that at the pre- 
sent time there are but two classes of officers, do 
nomine, attached to the Superior Courts of ooni- 
mon law, viz., the masters and associates. It is 
true that the ancient title of Queen s Coroner and 
Attorney is preserved by a virtual master, in tha 
Crown Office ; and that the Queen's Bemem- 
branoer, though, in fact, a maater of the Ex- 
chequer, also preserves hia distinctive title. 
But tlie distinction is little moro than no- 
minal, and it has beoome a question whether, 
in view of the generalising tendency of the 
Judicature Act, even these nominal distinotiona 
should be maintained. Bo long as they are main- 
tained they give oolonr to the distinctiveness of 
administrative organisations which are np longer 
needed. With these exceptions, masters and asso- 
oiatea are ^e only officers attached to these 
courts in London. These officers, upon salary, 
and assisted by salaried olerks, have superseded the 
numerous distinct officers who in- 1815 conducted 
the business of the courts, taking each one his 
individual fees upon process, which for that very 
reason it was his manifest interest to conserve and 
defend in all its intricacy and bordeosomeness. 
(To In eeatimud.) 


Wx u* glad to hear that among some of thfl 
larger law students' debating sooieties efforts 
are being made to extend their usefulness among 
articled olerks, and with this view we are autho- 
rised to (ay that the seoretary of tha Man. 
Chester Law Students' Debating Society has set 
inquiries on foot for the purpose of ascertaining 
the names of all artioled olerks in the surrounding 
towns, including Stockport and Oldham. It is 
very properly considered incumbent on all solioi- 
tors to become members of the Incorporated Law 
Society, and ' if the council could see its way to a 
redaction of the entrance fee in all oases, and tha 
redaction also of the annual subscription in all 
country oases, many more practitioners would, no 
doabt, join, especially if the council carried their 
work a little further into those regions certainly leas 
agreeable than, but equally necessary with, those 
in which they usually labour, as, for instance, by 
scouring tiie enforcement of the law in all oases in 
which it can be clearly shown that the rights and 
privileges of the PrMession have been infringed 
by nnqnalified persons. As, then, it is considered 
incumbent on solicitors to join the Inoorporated 
Law SooictT, so articled olerks in all large oentrea 
may fairly be expected to join well governed and 
well managed law students debating soeieties^ro- 
Tided proper facilities are afforded them. When 
it is remembered that for the future oountry 
■oUcitors will be called npon to undertake 
advooaoy, espeoially ia our Connty Courts, of a 
very important nature frequently, the importance 
of cultivating a fitting mode of speech can hardly 
be exaggerated. We admit frankly that a Law 
Btudenti' Debating Sooielj is not the best of 

sohoola for instruction of this kind, but in the 
absence of any other it ought to be made use of. 
We know full well that these debates, at times, 
degenerate into attacks by a speaker ou the one 
who preceded him in debate, and this cannot be 
too strongly deprecated ; yet wo repeat that every 
student of the law, no matter for which branch 
of the Profession he is destined, must make good 
use of the best opportunities, bad as they may 
be, which offer themselves, at all events if he 
wishes for and aims at something more than 
mediocrity in the professional rauka. We shall 
be pleased to put any articled clerk in communi- 
cation with the officers of the debating society— 
where such exists — of the district in which he 
reaides. We hope soon to hoar that the impor- 
tant iiueBtion of iubtruotion in advocacy for 
articled dorks is under the consideration of the 
oounoil of the Incorporated Law Society. 

A 80LICIT0E writes as follows npon the subject of 
the work which he hopes will be undertaken by the 
Legal Practitioners' Society ; "1 hope the society 
will in due time thoroughly discuss the question 
of the managing olerk of ten years' standing being 
allowed to be articled for three years only, and 
then to be admitted a solicitor. This privilege is 
a great injustice to younger members of the Pro- 
fession, who have expended mnch time and money 
upon their legal education, and in many cases where 
a change of principal takes place, and a new man 
comes to the practice, these men have much in 
their power, and often set at defiance a new comer 
if he will not give the old clerk his articles, and 
often do all they can to get old clients away from 
the office. I know one or two instances where 
much mischief has been done in this way. Thus, 
too, a class of men are introduced into the pro- 
fession who are not educated gentlemen. How, 
then, can we succeed in raising the status of 
soUcitors whilst this system prevails ?" 

A COHNTBT solicitor observes as follows in re- 
gard to the proposed Land, Titles, and Transfer 
Bill. " There ia no Bill whioh will affect the Pro- 
fession BO much as this one if it passes ; but if 
the Incorporated Law, the Legal Practitioners', 
and other law sooietaes, take the matter in 
in hand, I think there will be little chance of the 
Bill pa&aing or being again introduced. It was 
quite evident, from the diaoufl«iona on the Bill 
last session, that the public did not oaU for such 
a measure ; and it was also proved to a certainty 
that if the Bill passes, oonvejancing would become 
much more expensive. I think some peer or 
member who spoke in favour of the Bill went aa 
far as to say that the cost of conveyancing 
amounted to at Icait 10 per cent. This is cer- 
tainly not % fact, and the best way of answering 
such a statement would be to introduoo a Bill 
making the charges of solicitors certain in accord- 
ance with a scale of commission ; and, I believe, 
that if a deputation of eolicitors waited npon the 
Lord Chancellor or Mr. Disraeli, urging that such 
a Bill should be passed in lieu of the Transfer 
Bill, such a deputation would be favourably 
received, and the Government would, I think, bo 
glarl to have the assistance of the Profession in 
getting it passed ; and it would dispense with the 
necessity of bringing forward the Land Transfer 
Bill. I enclose draft of a Bill for the payment; 
of solicitors by commission, and hope to hear 
ihat Hoiae law Hooiety will take np the matter and 
endeavour to get it passed ; of course, with such 
amendments as may be thought proper to intro- 
duce. The scale of commission is a little lower 
than that proposed by the Incorporat«.>d Law 
Society." Want of space forbids our publishing 
the Bill, at all events for the present. The whole 
question, however, is no doubt one of great 
importance to the Profession, and we concur in a 
great measure with the views of our oorrespon- 
dent. __^__ 

Elsewhebe we report an important application 
made to the Conrt of Queen's Bench sitting in 
Banco on Tuesday last in which an attorney who 
has been uncertificated for many years, asked tha 
conrt to permit him to renew his certi£cate to 
practise, as provided by the 23rd section of the 
Attorneys' Act 18G0. 'the matter had been many 
times previously before the court, and before the 
master of the; court to investigate and report 
upon. From the master's report and other 
information before the court, it appeared that 
the applicant, was charged in 1860 with for- 
gery, he absconded, but in 1869 ho was em- 
ployed in Liverpool aa a olerk under an as* 
snmed name. Arrested there on a warrant, ha 
was tried at the Central Criminal Court and 
acquitted. He then beoame clerk to an attorney 
named Cooper, carrying on business in Ken- 
nington Park-road, London, since deceased, and 
for some years afterwards acted as clerk to 
an attorney, formerly of New Inn, Londoi^ 
during which time in suoh oapaoi^ he conductad 

Digitized by 




[Nov. 28, 1874. 

with the theatrical world, in many of which his 
father, and some of which he, was plaintiff. It is 
due to the Council of the Incorporated Law Society 
to say that they took.evcry pains to haye the case 
properly presented to the court, and it is in no 
Bmall degree owing to the careful investigation 
on the part of the council into charges preferred 
against the applicant, which were brought under 
their notice, that the Profession is spared the pais 
of knowing that such an attornc-y as the applicant 
ia admitted to practise amongst them. As regards 
the applicant's name remaining on the roll of 
attorneys, we do not hesitate to eay that if 
the charges advanced against him are well 
founded, the necessary steps ought to be at 
once taken to remove his name from the Rolls, 
for surely if an attorney is not considered 
by the Court of Queen's Bench a fit person to bo 
granted a certificate to practise, neither ia he a fit 
person to bo on the Bolls. Moreover, several ap- 
plications have been made to the court that the 
attorney in question may be granted a certificate, 
and so far as we can see there ia nothing to pre- 
vent further applications of a similar kind being 
made. Then again there is the question of 
professional men employing thoKe similarly situ- 
ated to the applicant as clerks. We have 
no knowledge of the facts in this respect in 
the present case, and we do not therefore sug- 
gest that there has been any breach of the law, 
but it is a fair matter for comment, that to 
have the name of a person onithe Holla who 
hag been repeatedly refused by one of the 
highest tribunals in the country a certificate, 
without which the fact of his being on the 
EoUs is, or should be, of no avail to him, is to 
offer a temptation for an infringement of the 32nd 
section of the Attorneys' Act of 1843, which 
renders an attorney liable to be struck off the 
Bolls who shall wilfully land knowingly act as 
agent in any action or suit for any person not duly 
qualified to act as an attorney or solicitor, or 
permit or suffer hia name to be anyway made use 
of iu any such aotioHor suit, upon the account or 
Tor the benefit of any unqualified person, or do 
uny other act thereby to enable such unqualified 
person to appear, act, or practise in any respect 
as an attorney or solicitor, knowinfr such person 
not to be duly qualified, and which renders such 
unqualified person liable to be committed to 
prison for any term not exceeding one year. 
The Lord Chief Justice, in delivering judgment 
in the case, said *' that it was with considerable 
regret he had come to the conclusion to which 
ho must give effect, becanse he was always very 
sorry to exclude anyone from the practice of a 
profession on which he was more or less depen- 
dent for the means of earning his livelihood ; yet 
there were circumstances under which it became 
neoeaaary to do so. The conduct of which the 
applicant (Mr. Edward Lawrence Levy), had been 
guilty, and the manner in which he had acted, 
culd not be too strongly reprobated, and as 
he had failed to show the court that con- 
fidence could be ^placed in him the application 
must be refused." It is easy to recognise the 
reluctance which his Lordship felt in deciding to 
shut out the attorney in question from practising, 
80 far as the denial of a certificate is a prevent!- 
tive ; on the other hand, to have admitted the 
applicant to practise would have occasioned, at 
all events surprise, the limit of which would have 
been almost unbounded. So long as solicitors are 
officers of the Superior Courts, so long does a 
great obligation remain with the judges of such 
courts to protect the public against the depre- 
dations of unscrupulous practitioners, and equally 
to protect the interests of those officers of the 
court who, by a career of rectitude and pro- 
fessional morality, hold with the public at large 
relatioas of the most confidential nature in their 
capacity as solicitors. 

The subject of the summary jurisdiction of 
magistrates has of late received much attention. 
Mr. Higgiii, Q C-, chairman of the Preston Quarter 
Sessions, in charging the grand jury at the 
sessions there, referred to certain proposals which 
had been made by the Magistrates' Clerks' So- 
ciety, which is composed of clerlis to magistrates. 
Thty advocated, he said, measures of a very 
extensive and sweeping character. One of these 
proposals was that magistrates iu petty sessions 
should have power to deal with cases of felony 
where the value of the property stolen was under 
£5, if such a proposition were adopted it would 
simply deprive nine-tenths of tlie persons who 
wore charged with felony of the inestimable right 
-ho would not call it privilege — of trial by jury. 
Having quoted statistics in support of his state- 
ments, the learned gentleman expressed his 
opinion that such sweeping measures aa these 
would never be adopted by tlie magistrates at 
large, inasmuch as they were protectors of the 
liberties of the subject, as well as dispensers of 
justice. We are sorry we cannot entirely agree 
with the learned chairman's views on this impor- 
tant subject. 'I'bo opinion of the Magistrates' 

Clerks' Society, as here expressed, muat not bo 
dismissed in a summary way. "They are very 
excellent judges of what is desirable on anoh 
questions, the opinions of chairmen of quarter 
sessions notwithstanding. We very much ex- 
pect that the Secretary of State for the 
Home Department will not fail to give to the 
combined opinion of magistrates' olerka that full 
and careful consideration which they neoesaarily 
deserve. To talk of trial by jury and the 
liberty of the subject in the presence of that 
numerous class of orimisala ao frequently brought 
before courts of petty sessions for petty larceny, 
will hardly do in these days, for, if left to the elec- 
tion of the accused they would, in nine cases out of 
ten, prefer to be summarily dealt with. There 
ought to be no difficulty in providing a meana for 
dealing with such oaaea mors summarily, expedi- 
tiously, and economically, wit.hout in any way 
endangering the liberty of the subject, or the 
general right of trial by jury. 

It is hardly creditable to the administration of 
justice that plaintiffs in actions of ejectment 
are so frequently put to the delay and exponso 
of going to trial by the act of a defendant 
entering an appearance in the action. In 
actions for debt we know an appearance is fre- 
quently entered where there is no shadow of 
defence, but where it is resorted t» for the ptirpoae 
of delaying payment to a creditor. This latter sys- 
tem is bad enough, but the grievance is far worse 
in a certain class of actions in ejectment, where 
tenants hold over, sometimes out of mere bravado, 
rent in such cases, usually being in arrear. The 
subject is a very important one to landlords, and 
the Legislature may be fairly asked to provide in 
a certain class of cases of this kind that an ap- 
pearanoe shall only be entered, aa is provided by 
the Bills of Exchange Act, on an affidavit that 
the defendant has a good defence to the action on 
its merits, «r that it is reasonable that the defen- 
dant should be allowed to appear. During the past 
week a number of undefended actions have come 
before the courts at Westminster, and the delay 
to plaintiffs in such cases is often aggravated by 
the fact that the venue being local, it must, in 
the first instance, be laid in the county within 
which the property is situated. By this means a 
plaintiff ia often thrown over a long vacation. 

An important letter has recently appeared in the 
Money article of the Times upon the manner in 
which a certain class of so called accountants, 
appointed trustees under the provisions of the 
Bankrupcty Act of 1869, discharge the duties of 
such offices, and especially as to how such 
accountants set to work to secure their appoint- 
ment to thoBO lucrative and irresponsible posts. 
The leading journal in shortly referring to the 
letter of " Unfortunate Creditors," which it pub- 
lishes, strikes at the root of a great part of 
the evil complained of when it aay s, " Accountants 
ought to be tied down to fixed charges." In other 
respects, however, our contemporary fails in 
the correctness of ita conclusions on the sub- 
ject matter of the letter, no doubt owing to 
a waut of practical knowledge of the questions 
raised. Eightly or wrongly, a large amount of 
important work is now undertaken by persons 
styling themselves aooonntants. An auctioneer 
and appraiser requires a licence to carry on 
his business, while the status, ao to say of 
accountant, ia in this respect peculiarly excep- 
tional. Any man or woman, may call himself or 
herself an accountant. Given the adoption of the 
name, almost any kind of business can be 
pursued by auoh persons ; given the busi- 
ness undertaken, and there ia not only no limit to 
the charge's made by them, but when filling the 
office of truatee under the Bankruptcy Act, both 
debtors and creditors are frequently to a large 
extent in their hands and at their mercy. Our 
readers are probably all, or almost all, familiar 
with the means and devices used by such persons 
to secure the statutory majority at meetings of 
creditors, and how, by the force and effect of 
proxies they are appointed trustees and receivers 
in cases, ofton not requiring such appointmenta 
to be made at all. Now it may be urged, with some 
amount of reason, that if that which is complained 
of is really a serious abuse, creditors should 
attend themselves at meetings, and so put a stop 
to it. Business men, however, having incurred a 
loss, are often unwilling, indeed, cannot afford to 
give time (which meana more money lost), to in- 
vestigating the pecuniary affairs of their debtor. 
A solicitor writing to us upon this subject, 
observes : " The only remedy for this is the 
abolition of proxies, leaving the meeting in the 
hands of the creditors personally preaent, and 
appointing one of the most important of these 
trustee. I think solicitors equally unfitted as 
accountants for this oflSee, which in ita very name 
signifies a disinterested holding on behalf of 
others." We cannot entirely concur in the view 
of our correspondent. The difficulty would be 

met to a great extent by providing that proxies 
should only be given to, and held by, creditors. 
For it must be remembered that accountants some- 
times undertake such work in connection with the 
estates of debtors in which no trustee is appointed, 
and yet in which they carry out arrangements, 
charging such large suma for their services that 
it ia of common occurrence for an estate to 
pay many shillinga in the pound leas than 
it otherwise would. It is the duty of the 
Legislature to protect creditors from snch 
irresponsible persons and their nnlimited charget. 
Other letters upon the same subject subsequently 
appeared in the columns of our oontemporuy, 
and we have received several letters from mem- 
bers of the Profession complaining of the growing 
evil under consideration. " Solicitors," says one 
of these, " often attend these meetings on Dehidf 
of client creditors only to find that this system of 
voting by proxy leavea them perfectly helpless 
either to appeal to the creditors or protect their 
cliente." The following ia the letter referred to 
aa recently published in the Times : " The time 
that has intervened since the coming into open> 
tion of the Bankmptoy Act of 1869 haa witnessed 
tha gradual development of what may now be 
considered to have climaxed in a system of toatis; 
by accountante or persons styling themselves 
Buch. As the evil is one which admits of easy 
remedy, we venture to ask your powerful aid in 
the matter, being ourselves at present creditors on 
five estates. The course to be complained of ia 
as follows : No sooner does a debtor suspend pay- 
ment than an active canvass of the creditors ii 
commenced, each being asked to concur with others 
whom the accountant alleges he representa in some 
course of action he indicates, invariably having for 
its ultimate object his own appointment as trustee. 
To attein this all manner of expedients are re- 
sorted to ; charges of misconduct arc made against 
the debtor, in many cases without the shadow of 
foundation, and the claims of other 6071a fid^ 
creditors, who it is supposed will act upon tneir 
own judgment, disputed, no expedient being 
omitted to obtain a proxy. The support of soma 
few unsuspecting or inexperienced orediton 
having thus been secured, the accountant attends 
the statutory meeting armed with his proofs and 
proxies. Anything more deplorable than the 
mode in which the proceedinga are conducted at 
some of these meetings it is impossible to con- 
ceive. Proofs are challenged and objected to, 
the debtor is sometimea again and again exa- 
mined, and every reasonable suggestion as to the 
mode in which the estate shall be realized in 
the interest of all concerned thwarted. Even- 
tually the creditors, utterly weary of use- 
less discussion, arrive at some hasty decision, the 
opposition being frequently bought off. It is snr- 
prising that this state of affairs, the preying upon 
the carcass of a bankrupt, has not earlier received 
consideration, together with certain other points 
in our bankruptey laws that are generally ad- 
mitted to need amendment. The remedy, as ha 
been stated, is simple ; in a great measure it is in 
the hiuida of the creditors themselvefi if they will 
only withhold their support from stray account- 
ants and attend these meetings peraonally. Un- 
doubtedly many are unable to do ao, and unwilling 
to devote time to the recovery of something ont 
of a loss already incurred, are glad to be reUevad 
of trouble without additional expense. Moreover, 
the mode in which they are first approoolied 
throws creditors very frequently off their guard 
when repreaentetions such aa the following are 
made : ' I represent Messrs. A. and B., or the — • 
Bank, and other principal creditors of Mesats. C. 
and !>., and am instructed to look into their 
affairs, and in this my friends desire yon to co- 
operate,' &o. Such is the formula sometimea 
adopted, in some cases with and in others without 
the authority of those professed to be represented. 
It should be distinctly understood that these 
observations in no way refer to the many eminent 
firms of aocountenta who are known to disconn- 
tenance the practice complained of, if possible 
even to a greater extent than the many who with 
us must subscribe themselves ' Unfortnate Cre- 
ditors." We must be oaroful also to dissociate 
the above observations from those accountants 
who are many in number and who, aa the <»"*■ 
spundent of the Times says, are properly occupied 
in important work connected with the inv estig*' 
tiona of accounts of every description. 

The Lord Mayor's Court of the City of LondoB 
ia, or rather the attorneys practising in '?>*"' 
continually getting into hot water with the judg* 
of the Superior Courts. Every term numerousapph- 
cations are made, usually to the Court of Common 
Pleas, for rules for the issue of writs of P''''''j 
tion directed to the Inferior Courts of E«!ora. 
Several applications of this kind were made o" 
Tuesday last. The most common ground of »P' 
plication is that the cause of action has not •J'**? 
within the limite of the jurisdiction of the wro 
Mayor's Court. Lord Chief Justice Colendp 
has, on leTenl o«o>aions, ahown • stzoog r' 

digitized by 

OMions, ahown • ob^fag da^ 


Nov. 28, 1874.J 



petition to fix the plaintiff's attorney with the 
ooata when enoh rales are made absolnte ; 
and Ifr. Jastioe Brett (not nsnally prepossessed 
in faronr of his eonjrirts of the lower branch), 
■tated in a case which came before the court 
on Tuesday, " that if attorneys will go on 
bringing these actions in the Mayor's Court, in 

r'tc of everything the court paid, they will find 
t their clients will have actions against them." 
We have before on several occasions referred to 
this important matter. Early in the present year 
a Mr. W. Brown published a pamphlet, entitled 
"Observations on the Jurisdiction of the Lord 
Hayor's Court and the prohibitions from the 
Court of Common Pleas," in which he stated 
that " It has been said that in the Court of Com- 
men Pleas it is unnecessary to do more than ael( 
•od have a writ of prohibition against any pro- 
oaedings in the Mayor's Court." Whoever said 
■o was guilty of an exaggeration ; on the other 
band, as far as solicitors are concerned the posi- 
tion is most unsatisfactory and hardly fair. It can- 
not be expected that solicitors will seek to fix each 
other with ooats in such cases, and inasmnch as 
the court ii preferred by many City commercial 
men to the Superior Courts, we think that tho 
judges hardly fully appreciate the actual position 
of matters in many such cases. 

Ix addition to the solicitors whose names we have 
abnady published as having been elected to the 
office of mayor, we have to add the following : 
Mr. Henry Pearson Gates, for Peterborough, ad- 
mitted in Michaelmas Term 1840. Mr. Martin 
Kemp Weloh, for Poole, admitted in Easter Term 
1825. Mr. George Warner Lawton, for Eye, ad- 
mitted in Easter Term 1829. Mr. John Thornhill 
Moorland, for Abingdon, admitted in Trinity 
Term 1863. Mr. Asa Johnea Evans, for Cardigan, 
admitted in Hilary Term 1853, and Mr. James 
Kempthome, for Neath, admitted in Michaelmas 
Term 18(51. Wc believe that Mr. J. E. Grubbe, 
barrister-at-law, has been elected Mayor of South- 
wold, which office he has filled on many previous 
ooeasions. The total number of aollcitora so 
elected is twenty-two. 

Mr. Nichols Maect, the re-elected Mayor of 
Bewdley, was incorrectly stated last week to be 
"Clerk to Magistrates, &o." This was obviously 
a mistake, it should have been said : Mr. Marcy 
was Clsrk of the Peace for Worcestershire. 


The following lectures and law classes are 
appointed to be held at the Law Institution, 
Chancery-lano, during the ensuing week, viz ; 
Monday, clase (Conveyancing), 4 30 to 6 o'clock ; 
Tuesday, ditto ; Wednesday, ditto ; Thursday, 
Isotnre (Common Law), 6 to 7 o'clock. To 
prevent interruption, gentlemen will not be ad- 
mitted after tho lecture has oommenoed. 

Tbzspass — Vkbdict rOB Puhhtifp upon 


Dakaoes— Refusal of Judok to certify for 
Costs— 30 &. 31 Vict. c. 142, s. 5.— Where the 
judge at the trial refuses to certify for costs 
jm&i the County Courts Act 1867, the court has 
jurisdiction to review such refusal, but will exer- 
cise such jnrisdiction under very exceptional 
oiroumstances only. By sect. 5 of the County 
Courts Amendment Act 1867 (30 & 31 Viot. o. 142), 
a plaintiff recovering not more than .£10 in an 
aouon of tort in a Superior Court, is not entitled 
to costs " unless the judge certify on the record 
that there was sufficient reason for bringing the 
Mtion in the Superior Court, or unless the court 
or a judge, by rule or order, allow costs." The 
lord of the manor sued the reotor of a parish for 
tnspass to his manor. The defendant pleaded, 
•ffiosgst twenty pleas — not possessed, that the 
leeiuin quo was the freehold of the defendant, 
user for twenty, thirty, and sixty years, and right 
of way. The jury found in favour of the plain- 
tiffs title, and in favonr of the defendant as to 
the right of way ; but they also found for the 
pUlntiff a? to one of the alleged trespasses, ueess- 
log the damages at SOs. It appeared at the trial 
that tbare had long existed disputes between tho 
parties, and that the object of the alleged tres- 
passes was to open np a road to the defendant's 
nctory, which the plaintiff, in the exercise of his 
le^ rights, had debarred the defendant from 
enjoying. The action occupied two days in trying, 
ud the pica setting up a freehold in the defen- 
dant was not formally withdrawn. Brett, J., 
hmBf of opinion that the action was brought to 
Biatify anger, refused to certify for costs : Held, 
first, that this court has power to review the de- 
cision of the judge at the trial ; Secondly (ciu6t- 
iante Denman, J.), that the judge is not bound to 
oertify whenever a right is put in issue ; and 
Thirdly, that the court will not review the dis- 
cretion of the judge unless it be very clearly 
■hows that Bnch discretion was wrongly ezeroisea, 

and a rule to allow costs refused. Ht7!(!B v. 
Skephard (L. Eep. 7 Ex. 21 ; 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 
500) considered. Per Lord Coleridge, C. J.— The 
judge was right in refusing to certify. Per 
Brett. J. — In considering whether to certify for 
coats under the statute, it is not necessary to go 
into the case of the defendant : iStrachey v. 
Osborne, 31 L. T. Bep. N. S. 374. C. P.) 


Thursday, Nov. 19. 

(Before Cockbubn, C.J. Blackburn, Quain, 

and Archibald, JJ.) 

Ex parte Rowlands. 

ArticUd clerk— Stamping and enrolment of copy 

of lost articles* 

Seih Smith moved on affidavits for an order to 
enrol a copy of an assignment of articles of 
clerkship which had been lost, and that service 
thereunder might count from the date of execu- 
tion. The affidavits disclosed the following facts : 
In May 1871 J. Rowlands was articled to O. D. 
Hughes for the usual term of five years ; the 
arti<'lea were duly stamped and enrolled, and 
Rowlands served under them until the death of 
O. D. Hughes, which took place in Deo. 1871. An 
assignment of the articles was executed in Jan. 
1872, by which tho residue of the term was 
assigned to J. Hughes. The indenture of assignment 
was forwarded to the London agent of J. Hughes 
for the purpose of being stamped and enrolled, 
but in consequence of some omission the inden- 
ture had to be returned, and it was then mislaid 
and forgotten. In Jan. 1873, Rowlands discovered 
that the indenture was lying at his master's office 
unstamped ; he immediately sent it off to the 
London agent, who again was obliged to return 
it. It was returned by post addressed to J. 
Hughes, and was lost in the transit. The fact 
that the indenture had again been returned was 
not communicated to Rowlands until Jan. 1874. 
A verified copy was, in pursuance of a suggestion 
made by the court to that effect, presented at the 
Stamp Office and was duly stamped. 

The Court then granted the application on the 
ground that the delay was not caused by any do- 
fault on the part of the clerk. 

Attorney for the applicant, H.Foulks Lynch. 

Tuesday, Nov. 24. 
Re An Attorney. 
Attorney — Application for certificate — Mis- 
Edward Lawrence Levy, an attorney, applied 
to be re-admitted to take out his certificate, under 
thcao circumstances : In 1866 he had been accused 
of forgery and loft tho country, a warrant being 
issued against him. In 1869 he returned, was 
tried and acquitted ; but he did not apply to be 
re-admitted to his certificate until 1871. In the 
interval he got into the service of one Turner, an 
anotioner and land agent, under a false name and 
by means of a false character from his father. 
In November 1870, he entered into the service of 
one Cooper, an attorney, receiving a percentage 
on the profits of the business he introduced. 
In 1871, Cooper, who had for his clerks one 
Levite, Levy, and one Kitson, died, and Levite 
then entered into an arrangement with one 
Lind, who was on the rolls as an attorney, that 
Lind should continue the business of Cooper, 
having Levite as his managing clerk, with power 
to arrange with the other clerks. Under this ar- 
rangement Lind received 15s. a week for the use 
of his name, and Levite found funds to carry on 
the business, and Levy introduced business, and, 
indeed, it was stated, the greater part of the 
business, receiving .£2 a week and a third of tho 
profits of the business be thus introduced. In fact, 
as the Master put it who reported on the case, 
Lind found a namo, Levite found money, and 
Levy found brains. Towards the end of 1871 
Levy applied to be allowed to t»ke out his certifi- 
cate as an attorney, and the application was op- 
opposed on the ground of his having got into the 
service of the auctioneer in a false name and cha- 
racter. The court declined to allow the applica- 
tion, but held out a hope that if he satisfied them 
after some lapse of time that he had maintained a 
pure and upright character they might re-admit 
him to practice. In Michaelmas Term 1872, ha 
renewed his application, and the court, other 
charges being made against him, referred the 
matter to the master iter inquiry. For a year, 
however, he did not present himself for this in- 
quiry, which was not made until tho last summer. 
The facts above mentioned, as tothe.way in which 
Levy, Lesite, and Lind had been engaged together, 
came out. Lind was called as a witness for Levy, 
but during his cross-examination he disappeared 
and never returned. Up to that time, however, 
Levy and Lind bad been together, though Levite 
had left them in 1871, and was now a witness 
against Levy. The new charges mode against 
Levy were these :— That he had made an affidavit 
denying that he had directly or indirectly prac- 

tised as an attorney ; that he had mule an affidavit 
in the name of Edwards ; that iu one of the causes 
he had conducted to trial, one GodJerer, whom 
he had known for years, and who himself said he 
had kept abetting office and afterwards had been 
engaged as an accountant, was called on his side 
as a witness under tho name of Edwards as a sur- 
veyor and got paid for his attendance as a sur- 
veyor, when, in truth, he was not so at all ; that 
he had conducted an action by one Brotvn against 
the Great Eastern Railway Company, in which 
.£350 hod been recovered as damages, but of 
which the plaintiff had only been paid .£175, and 
of this ^60 was paid by a bill not yet discharged ; 
and, lastly, that in one case conducted in the office 
the endorsements of feos paid to counsel had been 
altered and increased, so as to represent the sums 
paid as larger than they really were. As to these 
last two oases. Levy threw the blame on tho 
others, and the Master found that there was not 
sufficient evidence to convict him of having been 
privy to the frauds, though there was enough to 
raise a suspicion against him. As to Godderer, 
the Master found that Levy knew who Godderer 
was, and knew that he was not a surveyor, and that 
he got paid as such, though ho really was not so. 

Under these oironmstanccs tho case now came 
before the court. 

O'Malley, Q.C. and Tatloclc appeared for the 
applicant ; 

Oarth, Q.C. and W. Murray appeared for tho 
Law Institution, against him. 

After a discussion which lasted all day, the 
judges consulted together, and then —